Talk:Parental alienation syndrome/Archive 2

Jack-A-Roe
I have put a note on user talk:Jack-A-Roe, asking him if he's interested in contributing to the page. I chose JAR for a couple reasons - he is interested in issues related to child abuse, he understands the need for high-quality sources, he has a lot of experience working on heavily contested pages, and he frequently disagrees with me. I have no idea if he will comment or not but if he does I am sure it will improve the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Poland
Someone added the following to the page. I assume the external links are meant to be references (otherwise I would remove it per WP:PROVEIT) but it'll take a bit of time to tease out what the section actually means, and figure out if the references support it. They look to be blog posts from the URL, in which case they are not reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Poland is a single country and one of the sparse countries in the world, where are keeping research on PAS. Polish forensic experts point out the first version of phenomena determined as PAS was inexact, but confirm occuring of that phenomena, in the same breath. They maintain the wider research on the problem are necessary.

Polish scientist Maciej Wojewódka indicates unscientific reasons of PAS criticise as errors of its first version, faulty proposition of solution of the problem, judiciary corruption and subjective private interests.


 * http://kpor.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=6&Itemid=39
 * http://kpor.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=5&Itemid=40
 * Without actual references, and references I can read, this should not be included in the page. A limited number of polish references could be used, ideally a review article or two, but we would need confirmation by a polish-speaking editor.  These do look like blog entries, with no indication that Maciej Wojewódka is sufficiently well-known to have his blog stand on its own merits.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked Polish-speaking admin Piotrus if he would do us the favour of commenting or integrating based on the Polish sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a blog, but a site of some NGO (or to be correct, if it is a blog, it is the outlet of this NGO). Some of their articles are even referenced. I have no idea how reliable they are as I now next to nothing about this subject. I did some google research on Maciej Wojewódka, he doesn't seem to be an academic, nor does he seem to have a PhD title; he is mentioned as "mister Maciej Wojewódka from KPOR NGO". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm comfortable with just leaving it out then. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Time to stop editing and start discussing
I strongly, strongly suggest that you both cease editing this article, and start discussing edits here on the talkpage. This is totally unproductive. If this goes on I will apply for page protection to force an end to the edit warring. --Slp1 (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I will try to restore a NPOV to the article at another time. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * I'd say apply for page protection. It'll be the wrong version no matter what.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly agree that the current version is horrible, so yes you are right about the wrong version!! It's been horrible for days however and any version would be bad. I'll be going to the library on Friday and will pick up more recent books and papers on the subject. And unfortunately, Michael H, from what I've seen, I'm frankly unconvinced that your version of NPOV is actually NPOV when it comes down to looking at the highest quality, most reliable sources for this topic.--Slp1 (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've requested page protection WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
I've archived much of the page, leaving the discussions from the past couple days. Pull out old items if they are still relevant, or start a new discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Reception
The APA, AMA and DSM's failure to acknowledge PAS should be in the reception section, quite clearly in my mind. Acceptance, rejection or indifference is part of the reception of PAS far more than it is history, and must certianly be included in the page if it's referenced by so many sources (as well as making intuitive sense. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Repetition should be avoided. I think that "no position" and "concerns about its application" is given more weight in the History section.  Michael H 34 (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Where is there repetition? The lead does not count.  Right now the AMA is not mentioned anywhere except the lead, which is inappropriate.  And I think you are clearly wrong in this.  It is not historical that the APAs and AMA don't recognize it, it is current.  And they would be the main deciding bodies for whether there is merit to officially recognizing PAS (particularly given the APiatricA publishes the DSM).  These are the academic and governing bodies responsible for adjudicating on insurance claims, establishing expertise and accreditation, governing their professions and dealing with research.  How is it not appropriate for their lack of recognition to be in the reception section?  Repetition should be avoided is a nonsequiter since the claim is not currently repeated, and the lead never counts as repetition.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In my view, no position should not be in the reception, but can be added to the overview. I will do it myself, but will seek your agreement first.  The American Psychological Association is included in the lead and in the history (where it has higher weight than the reception).  Michael H 34 (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Placement in the article isn't solely by weight. Overview and history logically could be placed before reception (but WP:MEDMOS puts it after, at the bottom - though is this a medical article?  I would say not).  Since we disagree, outside input will have to be sought on whether it is better placed in reception or elsewhere.  The AMA and second APA is still not mentioned aside from the lead.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliability
Why is "Jennifer Hoult states that Gardner's writings published in both peer reviewed journals and legal decisions, PAS lacks both validity and reliability" attributed to three sources, only one of which is actually Hoult and the other two predate her by several years? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed this. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * By replacing "Jennifer Hoult" with "Commentators", which as I say elsewhere, is an equally weaselly way of avoiding phrasing it as a flat criticism? I disagree with this.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Bernet's doi
Bernet needs a doi appended to it - 10.1080/01926180802405513 WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

New York Times and the Whittier Daily News as sources
I've removed "Winerip" completely - every instance was as a duplication or in places where a scholarly publication should be used. There are lots of reliable books and articles to be used, the news paper is much more tenuous. Per WP:MEDRS, if a claim is found here it is better attributed to the direct source rather than popular press. Could still be used for "social claims". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)



Removing this citation was inappropriate because it was a source for Dr. Amy Baker's views. There was no overlap with other sources. The current Wikipedia article titled Parental alienation syndrome has been written to make it seem that Gardner is the only person who views PAS, a subset of parental alienation, as an existing phenomena. Some professionals, such as Dr. Amy Baker, view the label of PAS as appropriate and useful for helping children. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

The sentences attributed to Phillip Stahl, which provided the reader with an idea of what is happening in courts, was also reliably sourced and removed inappropriately. There was no overlap with other sources.

Philip Stahl, a child custody evaluator, states that problems described by advocates on both sides of the issue on PAS are happening, adding that during child custody hearings, courts are ruling in favor of people unfairly accused of alienation and are also ruling against people who have been alienated. He added that some evaluators do not understand alienation, and some evaluators want to apply it in every case. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Attribution tags
I've added who throughout the reception, for the "critics" and "proponents" statements. I do not think "critics" or "proponents" gives proper attribution, I think it's weasel wording. Ergo, I would like to see how the use of "critics" and "proponents" can be resolved properly without giving a, what I consider absurd, list of the five people who published books or articles supporting this point, or three supporting this one. I think a better formulation would be "criticisms include" or something similar. When multiple reliable sources converge on a single interpretation and criticism, I think it can flatly be called a criticism without needing to label the people providing it as "critics", which implies they disagree because they dislike the theory or its author, rather than because they dislike the evidence. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Gardner himself stated that PAS is used as an exculpatory legal maneuver, and when he states this, he is a critic. Removing attribution for the critics but not for those who support the legal recognition of PAS would violate the NPOV policy.


 * Attribution is not "weasel", but allows the article to maintain a NPOV. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Please thread your posts. If Gardner is stating a fact, he's neither a critic nor a proponent.  And naming Gardner specifically is a whole lot different than naming "critics".  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "When multiple reliable sources converge on a single interpretation and criticism, I think it can flatly be called a criticism without needing to label the people providing it as "critics", which implies they disagree because they dislike the theory or its author, rather than because they dislike the evidence."


 * There is a convergence of opinion? Bernet states that PAS is "universally accepted" by mental health experts.  I call the "need to label" attribution, and it allows the article to maintain a NPOV.


 * Critics state implies nothing about why the critic states the criticism. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Michael, do you have the Bernet article or are you just reading the abstract? Number one, it is totally inappropriate to cite from an abstract without checking the article for reasons detailed below; Number two, the abstract actually says that "the phenomenon of PAD is almost universally accepted by mental health professionals." And indeed if you check the article proper, you will note that Bernet has his own formulation of PAS, that when he says "phenomenon of PAD" he means "the general idea" and well, I'll leave the "almost" to speak for itself.
 * I agree with WLU that the "attribution" you often argue for it articles is not in keeping with the principles and practices of WP. You call them critics (for obvious reasons, I'm sorry to say); others call them law professors, psychologists etc. Which do you really think is of NPOV? This is why "Critics" is a word to avoid, and specifically commented about in terms of POV editing at the Featured Article Candidacy of the Roman Catholic Church,   It is just not acceptable to marginalize mainstream opinions in this fashion.--Slp1 (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost is key, as are the four references that state PAS has been extensively criticized (of which Bernet is one). When a single source says one thing, but multiple others disagree, we have to use editorial judgement to decide which to represent.  Any source can be cherry-picked or quote mined for support of a single point, or a group of sources can be as well skewed or ignored to give undue weight.  Unless there are a host of supporting sources lingering somewhere, the evidence speaks rather clearly that the mental health community most certainly does not universally agree that PAS is acceptable.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Undent: "Unless there are a host of supporting sources lingering somewhere, the evidence speaks rather clearly that the mental health community most certainly does not universally agree that PAS is acceptable."


 * PAS is accepted as a "phenomena" by the same people who reject the quote-unquote syndrome as defined by Gardner. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * The acceptance of the "phenomena of PAS" is supported by multiple sources and it is unrefuted by criticism of PAS as a syndrome. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Commentators
"Commentators" is no better than "critics". The people making these criticisms are not Joe off the street, or Mike Hunt who owns a house. These are scholars and experts publishing in the appropriate journals and scholarly press. They could better be labelled "experts" or the criticisms simply called criticisms. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The reception section starts with "PAS has been extensively criticized by members of legal and mental health community" even though PAS as a phenomena is "universally accepted by members of the mental health community" according to Bernet in his article published in the American Journal of Family Therapy. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * I don't see the relevance to the wording change. What does the body of the actual Bernet article say?  What is his definition of "parental alienation disorder" mean?  Is Bernet referring to PAS?  Because despite calling it parental alienation disorder, he could be talking about parental alienation, which probably is universally accepted.  And even if he says this, that doesn't mean he is right.  You are selecting the one article that supports your contention and ignoring the 21 that point to PAS being problematic.  I am more inclined to reference and give weight to the 21 articles.  Also, Bernet in the abstract states:
 * "This article presents arguments for considering PAD a diagnosis...the phenomenon of PAD is almost universally accepted by mental health professionals"
 * Bernet is making a case here, he's not summarizing the literature. If there's anything that needs attribution here that it's one person's opinion, it's this.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Bernet stated that "the phenomenon of PAD is almost universally accepted by mental health professionals." Your recent in use edits portray PAS as the Gardner theory that was not accepted.  The article does not comply with the NPOV policy.  Michael H 34 (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * No, if you'd read what I quote above, Bernet says he is presenting arguments that PAD (not PAS) is almost universally accepted. In fact, I think below I do a pretty good job of conclusively demonstrating that Gardner's theory is not widely accepted.  If PAS were actually widely accepted, it would be easy to demonstrate in the appropriate reliable sources.  In fact, the opposite is true.  I can very easily demonstrate that the general reception has been critical and rejecting despite some popular and courtroom acceptance.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Acceptance or non-acceptance is insufficient as an analysis. The syndrome label to the phenomena is not accepted. Acceptance of the phenomena of PAS is well sourced by multiple sources (some critical) and unrefuted. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

PAS is not well accepted
Unless there are a large number of positive sources missing from the page, PAS is clearly not seen in a positive light. Here are the sources and my analysis:

By Gardner

 * 1) By Gardner, limited use
 * 2) meaningless as it’s a letter to a newspaper
 * 1) meaningless as it’s a letter to a newspaper
 * 1) meaningless as it’s a letter to a newspaper

Positive

 * 1) need to clarify if this is even talking about PAS
 * 2) news story, their "endorsement" is worthless
 * 3) news story, their “endorsement” is worthless
 * 4) positive, but also states PAS is in the early stages of scientific review
 * 5) arguably neutral or unclear
 * 6) a news story, fairly irrelevant except for societal subjects and dubious in its minimal citation of the critical literature

Negative

 * 1) ‘’not strongly negative, more neutral but certainly not supporting and points out many flaws’’
 * 2)  dubious source – a newsletter, not peer reviewed
 * 3) need to confirm – cited in a different source''
 * 4) dubious, a personal webpage, now removed
 * 1) ‘’not strongly negative, more neutral but certainly not supporting and points out many flaws’’
 * 2)  dubious source – a newsletter, not peer reviewed
 * 3) need to confirm – cited in a different source''
 * 4) dubious, a personal webpage, now removed
 * 1)  dubious source – a newsletter, not peer reviewed
 * 2) need to confirm – cited in a different source''
 * 3) dubious, a personal webpage, now removed
 * 1)  dubious source – a newsletter, not peer reviewed
 * 2) need to confirm – cited in a different source''
 * 3) dubious, a personal webpage, now removed
 * 1)  dubious source – a newsletter, not peer reviewed
 * 2) need to confirm – cited in a different source''
 * 3) dubious, a personal webpage, now removed
 * 1) need to confirm – cited in a different source''
 * 2) dubious, a personal webpage, now removed
 * 1) dubious, a personal webpage, now removed

Unclear

 * 1) can't read, needs clarification
 * 2) definitely not supporting, points out PAS not recognized by the AMA or APA

By my count, that's 13 positive (6 by Gardner one being a letter; three are news stories; two are equivocal, so ultimately it's perhaps five that could charitably be called "positive and independent"), 22 negative, and two that are unclear. Clearly, clearly the criticisms are the more prominent side of the debate based on the citations now present. Accordingly, it is undue weight to marginalize critics or criticism. It is undue weight to portray it as "the jury is out". It is inappropriate to see it as anything but a fringe claim with some popular support. There are two possibilities:


 * The article is unbalanced due to a lack of supporting sources
 * The article accurately represents the mainstream scholarly consensus

Either way, further edits to the page to polish up the appearance of PAS is wildly inappropriate. MH34, seek new sources or figure out what's wrong with the analysis. It's possible my review was hasty, but I don't think so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your review was not hasty. PAS is not accepted with the label of syndrome.  However, the analysis and the current article does not include communication of the acceptance of the phenomena of PAS by "most mental health and legal professionals." (Warshak).  Michael H 34 (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Discussion
I've brought this up at NPOVN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "The phenomena of PAS is universally accepted by mental health professionals." I seek to comply with the NPOV policy. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Do I need to point out again, that that is a single source? I will now also point out that despite putting it in quotations, you are not quoting it?  There is an "almost" in there, and a "disorder" rather than a "syndrome".  And it is quite possible that Bernet is in the minority, in which case it is undue weight to place so much emphasis on one line in the abstract?  Do you have a copy of the PDF?  Could you e-mail it to me so I can verify that it actually contains that sentence?  And you have also failed to address my point that Bernet, in the abstract, quite clearly phrases it as an argument he is making rather than a fait accompli after the fact?  Rather than making substantial changes and resulting in the edit war that characterized yesterday's actions (because based on your edits so far I am certainly going to revert) please engage on the talk page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur, Michael. You cannot base a claim of NPOV on a misquote from an abstract of an article that you don't seem to have read. (The actual quote is "the phenomenon of PAD is almost universally accepted by mental health professionals". I have, however. The text says nothing close to what you are trying to imply it does. --Slp1 (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work on this, WLU. I agree that much of the recent scholarship on this issue is critical. However, in addition to the list above, several other articles in the American journal of family therapy (mostly in this journal, for some reason) in the last few years appear to be supportive, though interestingly the latest, a 2009 study found in a survey of mental health and legal professionals that they are "reluctant to support the concept of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)" (amongst other things). And on the supportive side there is always the "The International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome" published in 2006. Having said that, a recent (2008) review article published in the Journal of Child Custody,  expressed yet more  caution about the so-called syndrome; this analysis is clearer in the actual article than the abstract, but I can send full copies of the articles listed above to any editor who wishes and sends me an email. On the whole, it seems to me clear that the preponderance of current reliable sources express criticism and doubt about the existence of syndrome for multiple reasons. Per NPOV, this majority view should be predominant in the article.--Slp1 (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be cautious of putting parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome together. One is a concept, the other a purported syndrome, and they have separate pages.  Parental alienation as a concept has more acceptability in the literature from what I've seen.  Using a more specific search, the number of citations drops by half  but we do need to parse them for applicability.  Another issue is the one found at MEDRS - we're urged to rely on broad strokes articles, literature reviews and the general analyses found in books.  Please e-mail me any articles you might have.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * MH34, please review these sources and carefully expand the page based on them rather than reverting inappropriately based on the current sources. This may resolve the issue without the need for further intervention. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked at WP:RSN for a comment on the AJFT here, as a pattern of one journal publishing only one side of a debate is curious. However, I haven't taken the time to really review the articles spat out by google scholar, so this may be premature.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bernet is not the only source of support for the acceptance of the "phenomena of PAS" (PAS and PAD are not different except that PAD is a stronger term) including Warshak. Sources critical of PAS also support this (Drozd2009 and Waldron). Michael H 34 (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Note Administrator's noticeboard posting
Discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hoult and the US
Regards this edit, note that Hoult is not arguing that PAS has set no precedents, Hoult is reviewing the primary sources and publishing the fact that PAS has set no precedents. It is inappropriate to say "Hoult concluded this", since Hoult is not concluding "this". Hoult is showing that no precedents were set. Unless she has her facts wrong, there is no "conclusion" that is happening. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag
The article does not comply with the NPOV policy. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Actually, based on my analysis, it does because it gives proper weight to the skeptical position. I've removed the tag; placing the tag on the page requires a good-faith attempt to discuss the issues.  Articulate a clearer list of neutrality concerns, we will try to address them, then if that is unsuccessful a tag can be placed and other forms of dispute resolution can be used.  The version you 'finished' on  has many problems, many of which I corrected and your edits replaced:


 * The lead does not summarize the article adequately, is too short, and lacks many relevant details on PAS and the criticisms made thereof. As I expanded here.  The legal status in the UK, US and Canada can and should be expanded. As I did here
 * Overview inappropriately contains information that should be placed in "reception" because it is not a thumbnail sketch of the theory, it is about how various governing bodies have acknowledged, or failed to acknowledge PAS (ie, how those groups have received the theory)
 * History, per WP:MEDMOS, should be placed at the bottom of the page, as I say in my edit summary here. The descriptions of PAS from before Gardner's first article should be placed first as it was chronologically first as I do here.  You also removed a useful wikilink to exculpation which I added here
 * The information on the APA and AMA is repeated, unnecessarily. It should be removed from the overview section, which should give a brief summary of the theory only.  As I did here.
 * In relation to the DSM, Psychiatrist is inappropriately capitalized.
 * Several relevant criticisms made by Bruch have been removed inappropriately and without discussion; my reason for replacing it was in this edit summary
 * Series of scientific criticisms are in the clinical section for some reason. They're theoretical problems, not clinical ones.  Gardner's response should also be in the scientific section, as I moved them here.
 * Psychologist Amy Baker is capitalized and repeated; this is citing a news article. On a page with so many scholarly sources, a news article should not be cited.  Find Baker's statement in a reliable source and quote that.  I stated this in my  edit summary
 * Philip Stahl has published several articles on PAS. Why are we quoting a news source?  I mention this in my edit summary here

Please respond to specific points rather than edit warring again and again on the same issue without discussion. I have put a great deal of effort into backing up my points and reasons, with sources, policies and guidelines. Simply responding with "This page doesn't comply" is, in my mind, tendentious, totally unjustified pov-pushing, even if civil it is still very inappropriate. Explain why it doesn't comply with NPOV, the sources or the policies and guidelines. A simple statement without discussion, evidence, sources or other substantive engagement is just as bad as not responding at all as far as I'm concerned. I have been pointing out these issues for several days now, to ignore them because you disagree is rude and will only prevent consensus from being reached. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is clear from Gardner's writings that he did not decide that fathers and mothers are equally likely to initiate PAS, but that other researchers came to this conclusion. The article does not indicate this and thus an inaccuracy has been added to the article.  In fact, the article does not indicate that mental health professionals accept and do not reject the phenomena of PAS.  The removal of the references citing Amy Baker and Phillip Stahl helped to cause this problem.  Michael H 34 (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * I'm sorry, you mean the news articles not published in peer reviewed journals that the guidelines on medically reliable sources urge us not to use? You can not claim the NYT and a mediocre local paper as references that support PAS and therefore can be used to contradict a variety of much more reliable secondary sources.  Find citations in good journals and university press books, then make your case.  And regards Gardner deciding that both parents were equally likely to be alienators, see page 6 of Gardner, 2004 - "Now that men are equally likely to be PAS indoctrinators..."  That's Gardner's own words.  It is quite obvious that Gardner later agreed that either parent could be an alienator, and it is wikilawyering to say that because we don't specify it was Gardner's research, we should slap an NPOV tag on the whole page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is not neutral because it fails to communicate to the reader that "the phenomena of PAD-PAS is nearly universally accepted by mental health professionals" even if mental health professionals do not support the use of the label syndrome for these cluster of symptoms.  Some do, though.  Michael H 34 (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * This is now sourced by more than the just the Bernet article published in the American Journal of Family Therapy.


 * In addition, in my view, the lead includes too much detail. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Page Protection
I've fully protected the page for 48 hours per a request at WP:RFPP in the hopes that this will encourage issues to be resolved rather than reverted. If there is consensus for a change, you can request the change by placing editprotected above the section or by contacting an uninvolved administrator. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Philosopher. I will try and get some specific conversations going below. In some specific topic areas. --Slp1 (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How NPOV would work out in this article
I think the big problem here is that we have significant differences in our definitions in our understanding of what it means for an article to be of NPOV. Michael, you often say that the article is not of NPOV and that it needs to be changed. Can you explain, in general terms, what you would consider a NPOV article for this topic? What are your views on how the article should be balanced for and against the syndrome? What impression do you think a reader should come away with? It would be helpful to understand where you are coming from in this. --Slp1 (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(1) Adding well sourced statements to the article that communicate the following idea:


 * 1) the phenomena of PAS is accepted by "most mental health and legal professionals." This is unrefuted and supported by multiple sources, including those critical of PAS (Drozd2009).
 * 2) PAS is controversial, criticized and not well accepted as a syndrome. This idea is already included in the article, and I have contributed to some of the criticism.

(2) Restoring the sentence inappropriately deleted from the history section stating that the symptoms described by Gardner were "easily recognized by professionals working with divorcing families" (Waldron) who referred to the symptoms as "brainwashing." This statement is unrefuted by criticism.

(3) Emery's statement must be fair. He stated that he is fighting rhetoric with rhetoric.

(4) The attributed views of Baker and Stahl should be restored to the article.

(5) Gardner's and Baker's rebuttal to accusations of sexism should be restored to the article.

These changes would help restore the article toward balance in complance with the NPOV policy.

Michael H 34 (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Reliable sources
Are we agreed that we should only use the highest quality reliable sources, per WP:MEDRS? This seems reasonable given that proponents of the syndrome say that it is a psychiatric diagnosis and in the purview of the medical establishment. This would require us to use the most recent, most reliable sources. Looking at the references above, I see that WLU has questioned some of them, and that he is asking for comments about the reliability of the American Journal of Family Therapy at the WP:RSN. I would be surprised if they suggested that it wasn't reliable, but there are some sources that have been used above that I do think are questionable (e.g. newsletters, newspaper articles used for medical info, even the Dallam article) --Slp1 (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason I'm asking for a RSN comment is because normally I consider peer reviewed journals fairly uniform in acceptability, but a previous comment (here) opened up an interesting side of things. If most of the positive sources regarding PAS are coming out of a single journal, with other journals producing primarily criticism, that can suggest it is a "pet theory" of the editorial board, another indication of its status in the academic world.  Accordingly, the theory should be viewed with caution, as well as the positive commentary that the AJFT has on PAS.  I don't think we can go full MEDRS because it's not a recognized disorder or syndrome, but I think given the large volume of scholarly publications on PAS we should certainly restrict the use of press and popular sources to the history section, discussion of popular acceptance rather than scholarly and legal, or at least be judicious in our use elsewhere.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there's no harm at all in the question; though, as I point out above, their most recent article is actually quite critical by noting the lack of acceptance of the disorder by legal and mental health community . But it is interesting that this appears to be the only major journal that regularly publishes articles that accept PAS, even if the articles themselves are generally at pains to point to the controversy at some point. I would agree with you suggestion above about how and where we should use the press and popular sources.--Slp1 (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I replied to this at RSN also. I don't see anything to indicate a problem with that journal's reliability for Wikipedia.  It's a peer-reviewed journal with a 37-year history, published by Routledge, with a solid editorial board . It's not our job to judge sources or make assumptions based on their content. On the other hand if there are other reliable sources questioning the reliability of a journal or specific papers, that could be mentioned with attribution. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jack-A-Roe, I'm sure you are right. However, it was really interesting to look at the editorial board you linked to: it contains at least 10 easily identifiable "pro" PAS writers (Warshak, Baker, Bone, Bernet, Sauber, Lorandos (the last two eds of the International Handbook of PAS), as well as 4 more who who contributed) and none of the "anti-PAS" scholars. I don't think it really puts in question the need to consider the journal a reliable source, but it does give an interesting insight into the scholarly/academic dynamics of the issue. Looks like a real walled garden.--Slp1 (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fascinating fact: I went to the library today and took a look at an earlier edition (1995) of Ackerman's Clinician's guide to child custody evaluations.  This edition contained several pages of uncritical description of Gardner's syndrome. However, a quick glance at the 2001 edition of the same book will show that Ackerman's views have changed drastically in 6 years.  since in it he states that "no such syndrome exists" amongst other critiques. I think this is prima facie evidence that we must only use the most up-to-date sources for this article. I would suggest that we should sourced to post year 2000 articles and books whenever possible, the more recent the better.  --Slp1 (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I commented at the RSN about the journal in question, without any knowledge about where it might be being used in Wikipedia: " it is a journal of demonstrably abysmal quality. In Journal citation reports, it ranks 27th of the 30 journals in Family studies, and 85th of the 87 in clinical psychology." Peer reviewed journals are not all equally reliable--some are more reliable than others. I would not say the publication of a study in this journal necessarily disqualifies it for mention, but if this is the only journal where positive sources are to be found, that might even be indicated in the article, as relevant to the acceptance of the concept. . See further at .  Incidentally, what seems to be a key article on the subject was published in Academy Forum, a non-peer reviewed journal described by its publisher as  "a journal of news and opinion"  It is found in no standard index. As reliable sources go, that makes it one step up from a blog.  DGG (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After reviewing more of the solid reliable sources, it appears they are just about all strongly critical of the theory, and they document the lack of mainstream support for it. That provides context and support for addressing the claims of the references cited to the less-than-reliable journal.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting, both of you. Two articles were published by Gardner in the Forum, and since they were published by Gardner, I've made an effort to give them the "Gardner says..." treatment in my edits.  Gardner is the originator of the theory, and sufficiently notable to get mentions in the page, but I wouldn't use him for anything except describing his conception of what the theory is.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"That provides context and support for addressing the claims of the references cited to the less-than-reliable journal."

I disagree with this view. One must read the words carefully. The phenomena of PAS is accepted. The label of syndrome is not accepted, and this is sourced by the same journal. The article does not convey the well sourced acceptance of the phenomena of PAS (Bernet, Drozd2009, Waldron) to readers at all. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Recent edits
Here are a few thoughts on some the edits that have been made yesterday. Not complete by any means.
 * I think it is reasonable to have the countries in alphabetic order, per this edit of Michael's.
 * A minor issue, but it makes sense to me to have them ranked by amount of attention. Not enough to really argue, and I'm not aware of MOS guidance.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:MEDMOS not withstanding, I would support historical aspects and information being included earlier in the article. I think the historical aspects (e.g. relationship to the child abuse issue etc) are important in understanding the context of PAS.  That's not to say I agree wholeheartedly with the move made in this edit.  The information should be integrated into the overview in my view.
 * Edits need to be verifiable from the sources given. These edits (adding "and Canada", "Researchers, "and others") . They may indeed be "true" and verifiable, but this needs to be done immediately as part of the edit.  Please make sure your edits are verifiable, Michael.
 * the relationship between child sexual abuse and PAS claims/disputes is very clear and has been remarked upon by multiple authors. This edit deleting sourced information, claiming that it is 'unrelated' is inappropriate.--Slp1 (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The criticism was redundant with the phrase about abuse and was not written clearly. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

From Comments subpage
I think you need to update your page.

Richard Warshak, PhD. and Michael Bone, M.D. have written on the subject and would be reliable experts to give more grasp of the importance of legitimizing the existence of the problem, notwithstanding what label it is given. Also see Alec Baldwin's recent book on the misuse of the courts by alienating parents with the help of their attorneys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.158.241 (talk • contribs) 07:28, November 3, 2008
 * These comments moved from PAS/comments subpage, which I'm posting a deletion notice on.
 * Alec Baldwin isn't a scholar, he's an actor, so his commentary is not really useful here. I haven't seen Bone's name before, so he might be a good person to research on google scholar.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes you have seen his name before!! ;-) Michael Bone is not an MD.  He is a "mental health counsellor" (now non-certified, apparently because of weaknesses in his child custody evaluations), who is the author of an article about the legal acceptibility of PAS in a legal newsletter. . I think he is a highly questionable source, especially on legal issues.--Slp1 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The label that is given
The "label that is given", the definition of syndrome (discussed by Gardner), and the consequences of applying the syndrome label (overly influential on judges), are important issues with respect to this article.

I advise other edtors to use caution when deciding to completely dismiss Psychiatrist William Bernet's statement that "the phenomena of PAS is nearly universally accepted by mental health professionals."

I disagree with the method of counting citations assigning each a pro or con label, and then drawing conclusions. I disagree with the presentation on the talk page that PAS is unaccepted, no exceptions. The issues above are more nuanced than that.

For example, the Drozd source (counted as a con?) states that Gardner's research reveals that rarely [the phenomena of PAS does occur].

For example, the Waldron source (counted as a con?) states that these symptoms were easily recognized by mental health professionals working with divorcing families who referred to the issue as brainwashing.

In addition, Emery states that "he is fighting rhetoric with rhetoric." This should be added to the article. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Find more than one source saying it is well accepted and you might get some traction. And remember that PAS is not the same thing as parental alienation, and that they should be treated differently.  One is a purported diagnosis of coherent behaviours, the other is an observation.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Slp1 found an excellent source:
 * I ask readers to evaluate the following statement:

"Mental health experts can accept the 'phenomena of PAS' while remaining 'cautious and conservative/moderate about supporting PAS as a concept.'"
 * Why can this be true?
 * I used the Waldron citation to write a sentence critical of PAS. However, I also point out that Waldron citation clearly supports the acceptance of the "phenomena of PAS."
 * The current article does not indicate to the reader that the "phenomena of PAS is nearly universally accepted by mental health professionals." Michael H 34 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * I am not sure what I am being asked to evaluate or what the question "why can this be true?" means. Are you proposing something for inclusion in the article? If so, your first statement is obvious WP:SYNTH since you are joining together two different sources (the Bernet abstract  and the Bow et al abstract ) to make a new point. I'm also not sure why you continue to misquote the Bernet abstract. Can you provide a link to the Waldron citation, and explain you point again.--Slp1 (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I am not proposing that the question be included in the article and I am not making any new point. I am hoping that others may appreciate that the acceptance of the phenomena of parental alienation syndrome is something different from the acceptance of the quote-unquote syndrome as defined by Richard Gardner.
 * Here's the Waldron source for the sentence that I added critical of PAS:  Michael H 34 (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Do you mean that experts in the field recognize that children can be alienated from a parent, and that they may show signs and symptoms of this? --Slp1 (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bow, Gould & Flens (2009) clearly seems to support the interpretation that parental alienation syndrome is not widely accepted with the field in general. Though I'm only reading the abstract, the sentence "In general, respondents were cautious and conservative/moderate in their view of PA and very reluctant to support the concept of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)." seems pretty explicit but will have to wait on the actual article.  The way I read the abstract, most professionals (and therefore due weight) cautiously support the opinion that parental alienation may exist, but parental alienation syndrome does not.  Accordingly, PA can be described in cautious terms of children willfully separating from their parents, but clearly this page should describe PAS as something generally not accepted by the majority of scholars.  So again, another article to be added to the "negative" pile.
 * Drozd is quite clearly skeptical of PAS - "[Gardner's] work was based almost entirely on personal clinical and forensic experience...seldom contained indications of how he excluded from consideration alternative hypotheses on the syndrome...PAS has met with wide criticism on both legal and psychological grounds. Gardner provided little evidence to support its existence and subsequent investigation has failed to reveal any regularly recurring pattern of associated signs and symptoms that supports that the use of the term "syndrome"...there is considerable doubt about the evidentiary value of any syndrome, especially syndromes that have not achieved a level of recognition adequate to include them in any official nomenclature...Gardner's recommendations for treating the supposed syndrome are not only unproven but appear to be potentially traumatizing to children and families."  Drozd then goes on to describe situations in which aspects of Gardner's PAS may appear, but "need not occur in concert".  Drozd then goes on to discuss alienation without touching on PAS again.  Also note on page 22, "The recognition that Gardner's approach is not valid still left a puzzling problem...".  Except for the grossest original research to link parental alienation with PAS, I can't see how this could every be construed as a discussion of anything but the shortcomings of PAS.  Unless I am mis-quoting or mis-typing quite egregiously, there is no way Drozd can be seen to support PAS.
 * As for Waldron, I think I had based my analysis on the statement "Gardner's conceptualization of the problem and the dynamics underlying the problem proved at best incomplete, if not simplistic and erroneous". I don't think that can be spun into a positive, but the rest of the paper does discuss (with very few references) a non-Gardner conception of PAS.  There's also a section discussing PAS' lack of reception in the courts.  Overall I'd probably call this paper contradictory and based primarily one author's clinical experience, in addition to being 13 years old.  Frankly, I'd rather the paper not be cited the three times it is used.  Twice it is citing the same statement as several other references, once it is dubious.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's very clear that Drozd is critical of the concept of the syndrome of PAS. I'd concur with WLU that Waldron is by no means positive about PAS, and especially emphasize the need to focus on the most recent scholarship here. As I noted above in the reliable sources section, it is clear that academic thought has developed and changed significantly in the last 10-15 years. I suggest we try to focus on material written post 2000 as much as possible. --Slp1 (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Drozd is critical of PAS, but Drozd 2009 indicates that "Gardner's research...." Michael H 34 (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Undent. I don't see the relevance of that statement. Drozd is saying Gardner's research is flawed but is supporting the idea of parental alienation. Just not the syndrome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Some parental alienation is primarily caused by one of the parents. The Walron cite and others support this also. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

When parental alienation is primarily caused by one of the parents it is labeled parental alienation syndrome by Gardner and others. Mental health professionals reject the label but accept that some parental alienation is primarily caused by one of the parents. Please see Drozd 2009 and Waldron. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Please read the last paragraph on page 406 of Drozd 2009. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

More from the new citation
Slp1 provided an extract from the internet study:

"The vast majority of respondents indicated their awareness of the controversies surrounding the term “parental alienation” and perceived a lack of empirical research to support the concept. Nevertheless, they acknowledged the existence of alienation dynamics within the child custody field, and almost all viewed it as a multi-dimensional construct. Respondents did not view parental alienation as a “syndrome” as defined by Dr. Richard Gardner. Further, they overwhelmingly did not view PAS as meeting the Frye Standard of general acceptance, and almost all respondents felt that that PAS failed to meet the Daubert criteria."

Michael H 34 (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * So again, parental alienation is something that exists separate from, and is much more accepted than, parental alienation syndrome, and we can not use the existence of the accepted phenomenon of parental alienation to support the idea of parental alienation syndrome. What is the citation for this?  Please add it to the "negative" list above.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's the Bow et al one.--Slp1 (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mental health professionals nearly universally accept the existence of parental alienation and that it sometimes results when one of the parents is the primary etiological cause (Bernet, Waldron, Drozd), but that they do not "support" the "quote-unquote" syndrome as defined by Gardner. Based on this internet poll of mental health professionals, PAS fails the Frye and Daubert tests.  Michael H 34 (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * On my talk page, Slp1 wrote: PAS stands for "Parental Alienation Syndrome.", so yes they do reject the notion of PAS.


 * They do not reject "the notion of PAS." They (nearly universally) accept the "phenomena of PAS."  They are unwilling to label the "phenomena of PAS" a syndrome.  This is what is meant by they reject the "quote-unquote" syndrome as defined by Gardner.  They also report that more data is needed. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * WLU wrote above: "parental alienation is something that exists separate from, and is much more accepted than, parental alienation syndrome"


 * Parental alienation syndrome is not separate from parental alienation, it is a subset of parental alienation, in which the primary cause of the child's alienation from one parent is the other parent. It is rejected as a "syndrome", but the "phenomena of PAS" is nearly universally accepted by mental health professionals. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Quoting the same, extremely problematic article, published in a very dubious journal (see the RSN discussion), is not convincing, and has not been convincing since the problems were first pointed out. PAS and PA are different things and should not be conflated.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

By definition, PAS is a subset of PA. I agree that the article is problematic for your point of view. The journal is the same journal used as the source for the internet poll indicating that mental health professionals do not support the quote-unquote syndrome (the label given to the cluster of symptoms) by Gardner. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Can you source your claim that PAS is (by definition) a subset of PA? It's not true from everything I've read. Parental Alienation is one of the many terms that have been used to examine some related concepts. Many scholars (e.g. Bruch, 2001; Drozd & Olesen, 2004; Kelly & Johnston, 2001, Lee & Olesen, 2001, Darnall 1998, Walker, Brantley, and Rigsbee and others) reject PAS, but have developed different formulations of alienation dynamics, including quite different etiologies, nature, characteristics etc, which they may call parental alienation or child alienation or alienation or something else. It's like saying that the OPV AIDS hypothesis is a subset of Simian immunodeficiency virus causation theory, rather than a notion that the mainstream scientist who support the latter theory would reject.
 * For the last time, please stop misquoting the phrase the "phenomena of PAS". That isn't what the Bernet article says, as I have reminded you multiple times.--Slp1 (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please understand that PAS and PAD are not different in any respect, except that disorder is a stronger term than syndrome. In one of the citations Gardner cautions against the use of the term PAD because in his view, it would make it harder for one of the terms, PAS or PAD, to be included in the next edition of the DSM. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Can you provide a citation for the claim that PAS and PAD are not different in any respect, and that disorder is a stronger term than syndrome? These are important statements that cannot just rely on your say-so.--Slp1 (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Waldron and Drozd 2009 describe alienation dynamics also. While these sources are critical of PAS, they also indicate acceptance of the phenomena of PAS/PAD.  Sometimes, parental alienation is primarily caused by the deliberate or unconcious behavior of one of the parents.  Further, in defending PAS from criticism of being overly simplistic, Gardner states that if one of the parents is the primary cause for parental alienation than PAS is indicated, otherwise it is not.  Michael H 34 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * The above examples seems to only to confirm that Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation syndrome are different but related concepts. This article is about PAS. --Slp1 (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * They are not just related concepts! PAS is a subset of parental alienation!  Michael H 34 (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * I asked you above for a citation for this. Rather than just repeating the same statement can you find a citation and prove that it is not just your original research.  As I noted above there appear to be plenty of scholars that would disagree with this position.--Slp1 (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The symptoms that Gardner described were "easily recognized" by professionals working with divorcing families and had previously been referred to as "brainwashing." Michael H 34 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * I'm not sure the point of this statement, but anyway a source would be nice.--Slp1 (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I added this statement and the source to the history section, but WLU deleted it more than once. I believe that Waldron was the source for this.  Michael H 34 (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Discussion 2
WLU: "What is the difference of accepting PAS but rejecting PAS by Gardner, when Gardner is the primary theoretician behind PAS?"


 * MH 34: They do NOT accept PAS. They (nearly universally) accept the "phenomena of PAS."  They are unwilling to label the phenomena of PAS a syndrome and therefore, they reject the "quote-unquote" syndrome as defined by Gardner.  Michael H 34 (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

WLU: So what is the difference between PAS and the "phenomenon of PAS"? And if they are "unwilling to label the phenomenon of PAS a syndrome", what does the "S" stand for in "PAS"? And where is an alternative, non-Gardner conception of PAS published? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * MH34 PAS includes a description of symptoms. Mental health professionals recognize and accept that these symptoms do occur (the phenomena of PAS), but they reject the label of syndrome (the quote-unquote syndrome as defined by Gardner) for numerous reasons.  The cluster of symptoms was "easily recognized by professionals working with divorcing families." Michael H 34 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * I'm done wasting my time here. It is readily apparent to myself, and several other editors, that you do not have adequate support for the page version you desire.  Please stop pushing.  I'll continue reading what you post, but I won't bother replying.  In this situation, silence does not imply consensus.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Emery, 2005
Despite his claim to be using rhetoric, Emery, 2005 is asserting facts - that PAS has not been proven, and that the "proofs" that do exist are flawed clinical studies. In fact, the reason he states he is using rhetoric is because I am aware that I fight rhetoric with rhetoric in this article. This is not the forum for a dusty treatise on science, and as the rules of science make absolutely clear, the burden of proving the validity of PAS lies with its proponents. It is not my burden to disprove the hypothesis, because doing so is an impossible task. (page 5)

Much as Emery claims to fight using rhetoric, this is because he is asserting the fact that there is no scientific proof of PAS and therefore it is impossible to factually oppose it. ...only one study ([Gardner's] own) has even attempted a statistical analysis of PAS. Objective, public replication by independent investigators is another basic rule of establishing truth in science. By his own admission, there have been no independent, objective, or public replications of Gardner’s assertions. Thus, while scientists hold that it is possible that his ideas may, one day, be proven true, the rules of science dictate that in the meantime we must view PAS as unsubstantiated. (page 1-2) Unless the facts are incorrect, the statement needs no qualification. The other option would be to identify Gardner's statements as solely rhetorical, thus lacking any and all pretensions to be an actual medical syndrome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that Emery clearly states that he is fighting rhetoric with rhetoric. The reader should decide the relevance of Emery's statement. Your description of the other "facts" are in conflict with reliable sources critical of the label PAS (Drozd 2009, Waldron) which state that parental alienation is sometimes primarily caused by one of the parents - the definition of PAS. Michael H 34 (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Actually, the definition of PAS (as described by Gardner) is much more complicated than this and requires the involvement of the child.--Slp1 (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the word primarily indicates that other causes are involved. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * I don't understand your point, then. --Slp1 (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(1) It is improper to cherry pick statements by Emery who "admitted" in the same article that he is "fighting rhetoric with rhetoric." This qualifying statement is well sourced (the same source) and it must be disclosed in the article. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

(2) What are stated as "facts" above are unsourced and based on a limited, two-dimensional view (accepted or not accepted). PAS is a subset of parental alienation, in which the alienation of the child is primarily caused by the other parent. The symptoms described by Gardner were "easily recognized" by professionals working with divorcing parents who referred to the symptoms as "brainwashing." Acceptance of the phenomena of PAS is well sourced and unrefuted. Criticism of PAS is not the same as the denying the phenomena of PAS. The label of syndrome is controversial (it has legal ramifications and his prone to misapplication) and it is not accepted. Mental health professionals stated that more data is needed. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * You keep repeating that PAS is a subset of PA, and I keep asking you for a citation for this. I have read very widely on the subject, and I don't see anything to support your view. Please provide a citation or stop making this claim. --Slp1 (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(3) The article is not neutral because it fails to represent the above, and because it fails to portray Emery's statements completely. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

To make things clearer, first let me note that the term parental alienation is used to represent two different things - the condition of the child and the behavior of the alienating parent. PAS is a particular form of parental alienation (condition of the child) with the added requirements that (1) The alienation is irrational and without cause and (2) The alienation is primarily caused by the other parent. I can also refer you to Gardner's rebuttal to criticism that PAS is overly simplistic. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * For one last time, please provide a citation for this. It seems to be your original research as far as I can see.--Slp1 (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Anon comment
Why the objection to the listing of Canadian cases by Slp1? 15:50, 13 May 2009 Slp1 (talk | contribs) (26,161 bytes) (restoring sourced deleted material and deleting crc website material; a questionable reliable source which does not even say that the court rulings were in favour of PAS)

There is nothing but a list of and court decisions in Canada about Parental Alienation and was objected to by Slp1 who undid the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.84.98 (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a reliable source, it's not an informed or comprehensive description, it's simply a listing of court cases where PAS appeared. Could be usefully mined for information about individual cases were that not to grossly violate WP:SYNTH.  This type of material should be dealt with and quoted in reliable sources, not linked via partisan websites that lack analysis and whose analysis would be suspect in any case.  Slp1's edit summaries show that this is clearly not vandalism, while the removal of a negative government document in place of a strongly pro, partisan website, is certainly POV-pushing.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. 69.172.84.98, please stop adding that unreliable source. If you keep on adding the source without consensus, you may get blocked. AdjustShift (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The phenomena of PAS
The Warshak citation (along with Drozd2009, Waldron and Bernet) also supports that "most" mental health professionals accept the phenomena of PAS (paraphrased). Michael H 34 (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Warshak:

"To establish a new diagnostic category we must establish that (1) the phenomena exists (2) it is a disturbance or deviation from the norm (3)its symptoms warrant a separate diagnosis and cannot more reasonably be subsumed under a previously existing category."

Regardless of the correctness of WLU's comment: "PAS is totally different from PA", from this edit:, Warshak is discussing PAS not PA. However, and without doubt, WLU's comment is incorrect. PAS is a subset of PA. Michael H 34 (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

(1) Extreme, (2) unjustified and (3) promulgated and supported by the other parent - Parental Alienation Syndrome. Michael H 34 (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * PAS is not recognized by any official bodies and only a minority of scholars, so it's not really a subset of anything. There is much more support for the existence of parental alienation than there is for PAS.  If PAS were to exist, it would be the extreme of a continuum, and therefore parental alienation would still be more common and recognized than PAS.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In this and related edits I chose the wording "Though parental alienation is recognized as a dynamic in divorcing families..." rather than "Most mental health and legal professionals agree that some children whose parents divorce develop an extreme and unjustified animosity toward a parent which is promulgated or supported by the other parent..." for several reasons:


 * It is shorter on an already somewhat lengthy lead
 * To demonstrate that parental alienation does have some general credibility, in contrast to parental alienation syndrome, which does not
 * It avoids the doubly-weaselly "most" and "some" while still remaining accurate
 * It avoids "extreme and unjustified" as well as the "promulgated or supported by the other parent" because extremity, justification and parental support are not characteristics of all parental alienation (cf, "A third group of children were close to bothparents before teh separation and did not reject either parent. After the separation however, some of these children refuse to see the non-custodial parent and express severe anger and hostility towards that parent.  These children may have experienced pressure to form an angry alliance with the custodial parent..." - though Bunker also applies this definition to PAS.)
 * It avoids a long first clause before arriving at the essential point of the sentence - that PAS is not well accepted. The only purpose of this sentence is to indicate that not all alienation is rejected by most of the scholarly community, only PAS.
 * It avoids repeating the ideas of the previous paragraph (lack of justification) and also avoids linking the two too closely, thus giving the impression that the ideas are closer than they actually are
 * I'm not positive, but I think I read that parental alienation can sometimes be solely come from the child without prompting by the custodial parent.
 * Right now it's either a sentence fragment or just doesn't make sense, there should be a though, but, semi-colon in there somewhere.
 * Perhaps I am not seeing the advantages of the sentences here, but I continue to think that this is a return to a poorer choice of sentence, with no real benefit and significant drawbacks. This is not merely a matter of summarizing Warshak accurately; the sentence cites seven references in total, and should not be based on one conception of one source, particularly when it is a relatively minor and tangential point of not just the lead, but the article.  This should also be discussed in greater depth in the body.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am also unhappy with the version introduced by Michael H 34, and modified it . I checked the sources carefully, and it simply is not verifiable form Warshak or Bernet: in particular the "extreme and unjustified animosity" aspect just ain't there. In any case, as WLU points out, this is describing a severe version of PA or PAS, and is therefore misleading.  --Slp1 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with you. I would happy to discuss the Warshak article for as long as it takes to come to agreement on this point.  From Warshak:

What is Parental Alienation Syndrome? To establish a new diagnostic category we must establish that (1) the phenomena exists (2) it is a disturbance or deviation from the norm (3)its symptoms warrant a separate diagnosis and cannot more reasonably be subsumed under a previously existing category.
 * 1) rejection or denigration of a parent level of campaign persistent not occasional
 * 2) the rejection is unjustified
 * 3) it is a partial result of the non-alienated parent's influence
 * Conceptualizing PAS

Most mental health and legal professionals agree that some children whose parents divorce develop extreme animosity toward one parent that is not justified by that parent's behavior and, to some extent, is promulgated or supported by the other parent.
 * In the second paragraph above, Warshak is addressing point (1) for establishing a diagnostic category: there is agreement that the phenomena of PAS exists. Warshak then states

"That such children exist is not a point of contention in the social science literature. At issue is whether we should regard this type of disturbance as abnormal, and if so, whether a separate diagnosis for these children provides significant benefits beyond already existing labels, and whether PAS is the best way to conceptualize and label this disturbance."
 * Here is addressing points (2) and (3) for establishing a diagnostic category.
 * The phrase "Most mental health and legal professionals agree that some children whose parents divorce develop an extreme and unjustified animosity toward a parent which is promulgated or supported by the other parent..." must be included in order to comply with the NPOV policy.
 * To demonstrate that parental alienation does have some general credibility, in contrast to parental alienation syndrome, which does not.
 * Warshak is discussing PAS not PA. This is clear.  There is no doubt about it.  Please read what he wrote.
 * The phenomena of PAS (parental alienation which is irrational/unjustified and primarily caused by the other parent) is well accepted even though the label that is given to this phenomena is not. "Most mental health and legal professionals agree that some children whose parents divorce develop an extreme and unjustified animosity toward a parent which is promulgated or supported by the other parent..." fairly summarizes what Warshak states.
 * It avoids "extreme and unjustified" as well as the "promulgated or supported by the other parent" because extremity, justification and parental support are not characteristics of all parental alienation
 * Why is it desirable to add a phrase about parental alienation when the article is about parental alienation syndrome? "Extreme and unjustified" and "promulgated or supported by the other parent" are the important characteristics of PAS.
 * I'm not positive, but I think I read that parental alienation can sometimes be solely come from the child without prompting by the custodial parent.
 * Please note that you are incorrect when you think that this may be true. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Formatted for readability. Warshak is nearly a decade old, and considerable work seems to have been done on PAS since then.  I see one way of dealing with this - remove the sentence outright and have the second paragraph in the lead start with "PAS is not recognized as a disorder by..."
 * Warshak may claim that PAS exists, but numerous more recent sources contradict this. Whether all those other researchers would the rejection parental alienation syndrome, parental alienation or Medea syndrome is the central question of the two articles, and appears to be negative for PAS.  Citing Warshak, Baker's 2007 survey suggests that more than half don't think it should be in the DSM is rather dubious.  Quote mining and ignoring the skeptical literature is not a fruitful way of writing the page.  Given the dubious benefit and now lengthy dispute, I'll just remove it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Michael, I don't even know where to start. So I'll just mention a couple
 * You must stop adding unverifiable information into the article. Despite your extensive quotes above, neither Bernet nor Warshak mention anything close to "extreme and unjustified."  It may be sourceable (though see below), but your repeated insertion of this material (especially after I pointed out the lack of verifiability) is disruptive editing.
 * In any case, "extreme" animosity is not an important characteristic of PAS. Gardner (2007) himself says that in mild PAS cases the campaign of denigration is minimal.--Slp1 (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

From Warshak:

"Conceptualizing PAS

To establish a new diagnostic category we must establish that (1) the phenomena exists (2) it is a disturbance or deviation from the norm (3)its symptoms warrant a separate diagnosis and cannot more reasonably be subsumed under a previously existing category.

Most mental health and legal professionals agree that some children whose parents divorce develop extreme animosity toward one parent that is not justified by that parent's behavior and, to some extent, is promulgated or supported by the other parent."

Of the three categories of criticism, (1) not a phenomena (2) not a disturbance or (3) not beneficial, Warshak and Bernet both tell us that there is agreement that (1) is not a criticism.

Warshak is discussing PAS and "Most mental health and legal professionals agree that some children whose parents divorce develop an extreme and unjustified animosity toward a parent which is promulgated or supported by the other parent..." is extremely true to what Warshak states. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael H 34 (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Repeating doesn't make it any more convincing the second time. Warshak saying something eight+ years ago doesn't make it appropriate.  It also doesn't mean it must be included in the lead.  The idea should be developed and fleshed out in the body first, then briefly summarized in the lead if appropriate.  Which I don't think it is.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "The idea should be developed and fleshed out in the body first...."


 * I agree. That's good advice.  Michael H 34 (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Bala
Though I like the idea of citing the study by Bala recently added by Slp1, I'd rather cite the study itself than a news article reporting on the study (per WP:MEDRS). I can't track down a citation on google scholar, the closest I could is this one. Can anyone confirm? It may be so recent that the article hasn't been published yet (the G&M article was from today). If the G&M article is citing the study itself accurately, rather than just reporting Bala's opinion, that would be a great addition to several sections of the page - history, overview, any gender stuff, etc.

Oh, and here is yet another study that states PAS is not scientifically sound. Is it at the point at which efforts to soften the critical stance on PAS can be justification for instablocks yet? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked for the study yesterday, and it seems the study is not out in a journal yet; all there is is the article at present. See this media alert. Personally I think it is enough for a brief mention in the Canadian section, since we have so little there. --Slp1 (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, your links above don't work for me. I guess they are some sort of temporary thing? --Slp1 (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, they're to science direct and interscience. The doi for the second is doi = 10.1016/j.avb.2008.08.002 and the info for first is   WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Smith research
I've reverted a series of changes by ; we should not be "clarifying" the "important conclusions" when we don't have the actual study to review. Citing a conference on PAS when PAS is itself disputed, is also dubious. I am still reluctant to link to the Canadian Children's Rights Coalition page as it is very partisan, and I sufficiently doubt it that I am reluctant to use it even as a link of convenience. Even more reluctant to embrace the changes when it is after a string of POV-pushing contributions. Kinda whiffs of sockpuppeting or meatpuppets. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree about the unencyclopedic, POV tone. I also think it was not appropriate for a section on Canada and I have removed most of it again.  I recycled  the info about mothers and fathers as alienator briefly elsewhere. Given several behavioural characterisitics, I also agree about the likelihood of sockpuppeting; SmithResearch also apparently works with CCRC as s/he admits below, so there is a COI at the very least.--Slp1 (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Globe and Mail article about Nic Bala's study
It seems that only those points in the study which support certain peoples POV are "worthy" of being in the webpage. WHY? If you are going to quote the articleand the study, why not include other important points of the study?

By the way, Nic supplied the Study to the Canadian Children's Rights Council before the article was published in the Globe and Mail. The Canadian Children's Rights Council is shown as a linked resource on the Queen's University - Faculty of Law website

- Canada

A 2006 research report by the Canadian Department of Justice described PAS as "empirically unsupported" and favored a different framework for dealing with issues of alienation that has more research support.[31] A study of 145 Canadian alienation cases by law professor Nicholas Bala of Queen's University noted that the number of such cases have been increasing over the years. In half of the cases, judges declined to make findings of parental alienation as the child was "understandably estranged from the rejected parent due to abuse or poor parenting." Professor Bala's study also concluded that "It is important for the justice system to take an early and firm response to alienation cases."[32]

On March 28th, 2009, at an international conference of PAS held in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Gene Colman, a well known Canadian lawyer and the founding editor of the Canadian Journal of Family Law presented a study on 74 PAS cases which found that mothers were significantly more likely to be the parent who emotionally poisoned their children than were fathers. He stated that the mother was the alienator in 50 of the cases and the father in 24 cases. The study also concluded that judges were twice as likely to order fathers into counselling than mothers.[33]

The entire section is based on studies published in articles from the Globe and Mail.  Are you going to talk about editing others work here before changing it?

I suggest that you get a consensus before deleting others work on the same article/study.Smith research (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He did, above. --Slp1 (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Links to ccrc website
I note that various editors have been linking newspaper articles posted on the ccrc website. Note that since there is no sign that the CCRC have permission to host these articles, they seem to be copyright infringements and per policy WP:COPYLINK we must not link to them. Additionally given the COI that SMorris and likely Smith research have in this matter, it also seems somewhat promotional to place spam link (in order to get WP readers to their site). I will be removing all the links I find. Please do not change them back. --Slp1 (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The links to Canadian Children's Rights Council (CCRC) do seem to be inappropriate. Although it claims to be a children's rights group, it appears from it's content to be a father's rights advocacy group with an extensive bias in favor of supporting PAS.  I'm not implying that their work is negative, they maybe fine as a political activism group, but they do not seem reliable as a source for Wikipedia, other than about their own work in the proper context with attribution.


 * It may also be useful to note that there is a different kind of children's rights organization based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, using the same acronym, CCRC: Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children. I just mention this so that when we use the acronym we don't create any confusion between the two. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was mainly concerned about the copyright violation issues and the requirement not to link to them for that reason, but I think your analysis of them is on the mark. This book reference to them makes your point about confusion with Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children too, in a different way !!!--Slp1 (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not just that, it also explicitly identifies CCRC as a father's rights group, not a children's rights group. WP:CONV also suggests the links may be problematic.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bernet and the DSM
Bernet's approach to the DSM, if accurately summarized, is rather inappropriate. The DSM as far as I recall includes entities already accepted and considered "proven" while he wants to use it to force acceptance so research can start. I'll see if I can dig up a source, but if my recall is off then please enlighten me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. It seems distinctly strange thinking... the actual article limits the research suggestion to researching treatments, which is more reasonable. Another good example of why it is inappropriate to use an abstract to cite an article.--Slp1 (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Bernet's statement is accurate and attributed to him. It is absolutely appropriate to inform the reader about why he (and others) wish to add PAS to the DSM.


 * What some may view as strange is the following line of thought: PAS is not scientific because it's not supported by enough data, but don't add PAS to the DSM because it's not scientific [though inclusion in the DSM would promote the research needed to evaluate the syndrome.] (Syndrome is not the strong term; disorder is the strong term.)  Michael H 34 (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Syndrome attributes a degree of medicalization that is not warranted - it's not a syndrome, it's a description, and calling it a syndrome makes people think it's something real when it is not accepted as such. That's the objections that numerous people have raised - calling it a syndrome makes essentially Gardner's opinion have more weight to the uninformed layperson than it should have.  I've adjusted the summary of why he thinks it should be included.  If there are others making the argument in reliable sources, they could arguably be included as well if it is recent and appropriate.
 * A more sensible way of including something in the DSM (and indeed the approach used by the DSM's authors and the american psychiatric association) is research and statistical information demonstrating with reasonable certainty that something exists, followed by inclusion. A hypothesis is just a hypothesis until it is proven, which PAS is not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Disorder is the stronger medical term. Syndrome is a weaker term.  However, I agree that PAS is criticized as being inappropriately influential in court because the word syndrome is thought to be overly influential on judges.   "hypothesis is just a hypothesis until it is proven, which PAS is not."  Stockholm syndrome is not "proven" either.  Michael H 34 (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * I don't see this conversation leading anywhere in particular, but since the claim has been repeated several times, where does the idea that "disorder" is a stronger medical term and "syndrome" a weaker term come from? Citation please. And please let's avoid strawman arguments like the "Stockholm syndrome" reference.  Thank you. --Slp1 (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Who thinks parental alienation is a syndrome, versus a disorder? How many scholars agree, or even disagree that they are the same thing?  How many use PAD as their chosen terminology?  The biggest agreement I have seen about PAS is that it's generally rejected in most of its formulations, and that should be where the weight in the page is.  If only one person is arguing for "disorder", when most scholars don't even agree that it exists, that's probably undue weight.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "most scholars don't even agree that it exists" [as a phenomena]


 * Please provide a source for this statement. Your assertion is original research.  Michael H 34 (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Overview
Moved to bottom to re-open discussion WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex

The overview section should have a brief summary of the most salient points of the theory, what it's essentially about. Shouldn't contain anything beyond those abstract facts and context. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think History and Overview should be combined - overview in my mind is the brief summary of the "guts" of PAS, what Gardner and proponents think PAS is - essentially timeless and the only references to changes made are when the conception has changed. History I think should be a separate section - perhaps a subsection of overview - that discusses previous examples, where it came from, societal impact (i.e. how it was used in the courts, how conceptions have changed, discussions in popular sources like the NYT and similar) but to combine the sections means a mixing of timeline, court appearances, societal reactions and the like with the "substance" of the theory.  Essentially I think there should be a split between what Gardner described as PAS, substantial theoretical changes over time, and the appearance, development and change of PAS.  I don't have much manual of style to back me up, just WP:MEDMOS which has a separate history section, and if there is any policy or guidelines that I am not referring to, please let me know.  I could also see "Overview" being termed "definition", "theoretical conception", or something similar.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I knew you weren't too keen, but decided to be bold because I felt there was so much overlap in the sections are previously organized! The historical information seems important at the start of the article, seems important to give the context, particularly as it seems to me increasingly clear that this is, in a sense, a historical article; PAS seems to have had its peak in the 1980s and 1990s, and is mostly now rejected with alternative formulations (often called by different names) being proposed instead. Interestingly, the article of Bala that I just added calls his section on Gardner and PAS, "A brief history of parental alienation", and then moves onto describing parental alienation (largely cited to Kelly and Johnson, it seem). BTW he has some very nice info about PAS and PA in the Canadian courts, and states outright that while there were a few early cases were PAS terminology and etiologies were accepted, more recent cases avoid the syndrome terminology etc.
 * Back to the case at hand; I would be happy for a reworking of this section and likely including the new "characteristics" section. I note that Münchausen syndrome by proxy has "initial description" and "Indicators"; I would suggest something similar.--Slp1 (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How about ==Initial description==, ===Revisions===, ==History==? I still think history is appropriate at the bottom per MEDMOS and given its length, but if substantially expanded and demonstrates more clearly the rise and fall of PAS as a historical phenomenon, then it could go earlier.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried a few things for you to take a look at. I guess I'm thinking that Initial description and history are the same thing.  Everything I read, including the handbook, Bernet etc, suggests that most of the supporters of PAS stick closely to G's definition.  I would like to see the  revision section at the end, as a kind of coda.  I did add something of the sort to a previous version of the article, but it seems to have disappeared along the way.--Slp1 (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Department of Justice reference
"A 2006 research report by the Canadian Department of Justice described PAS as "empirically unsupported" and favored a different framework for dealing with issues of alienation that has more research support." was entered on the webpage. You didn't state the referenced page.

This literature referenced has a disclaimer in the front which states that it doesn't necessarily represent the Government of Canada's position on anything.

That study was only in cases of family violence pertaining to a very narrow perspective. The "family violence' now recognized by the Public Health Agency of Canada includes parental alienation as a form of child abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaniceMT (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 May 2009


 * Please see below for a response.--Slp1 (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * cn WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits by JaniceMT
I have reverted all the edits made by today by JaniceMT. The problems with these edits were myriad, and I will only list a few of the most major of problems:
 * Many edits were not of neutral point of view
 * There were multiple deletions of well-sourced material without consensus
 * There were multiple deletions of material claiming that no web link was provided, or no page number given. Neither of these are required in a citation.
 * There were inclusions of unsourced material contrary to verifiability
 * There were inclusions of material that was not present in the citations given, also contrary to verifiability
 * There were replacements of citations to scholarly articles (considered superior by WP standards) with links to self published material hosted on an advocacy website. These included links to copyrighted material, which is forbidden per WP:COPYVIO.
 * An "ad" for material hosted at the advocacy website was included in the text.
 * Janice MT has admitted being linked to this advocacy website. This kind of editing, including the widespread attempts to include links to the www(dot)Canadian crc(dot)com website (edited to allow save due to spam blacklist - WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)) on this and Parental alienation against the consensus of editors, is very problematic considering her conflict of interest in this matter. --Slp1 (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see WP:CONV - CCRC hit against pretty much every reason not to link on this essay. This was discussed on talk:parental alienation and JaniceMT is aware of this and has never responded.  I also strongly suspect that JaniceMT is an employee or advocate for the CCRC based on contributions from a series of IPs out of Toronto (where CCRC headquarters are) and this comment on my talk page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that JaniceMT included an edit that was multiply sourced, well sourced and unrefuted, but it was removed without justification. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Which one, diff please. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not accepted as a syndrome but agreement about the existence of the phenomena
The following edit is multiply sourced and unrefuted.

In order for PAS to be accepted as a new diagnostic category, it would need to viewed by mental health professionals as (1) an existing phenomena, (2) an abnormal disturbance of the child and (3) a useful diagnostic category that is not better explained by a different description of the symptoms or subsumed by an existing diagnostic category.[8] PAS is not accepted as a syndrome, but most mental health and legal professionals do agree about the existence of the phenomena: some children become alienated from one parent, the alienation is not justified by that parent's behavior and, the alienation is promulgated or supported by the other parent.[8][1][23]

Although more than one editor has added this edit to the article, WLU and Slp1 have removed it.

They also confuse parental alienation with the phenomena of PAS, which is more exclusive.

I challenge them to justify why they "do not think it should be included?"

In their justifications, I ask them not to attempt to conflate PAS (not accepted as a syndrome and the above edit makes this clear) with the phenomena of PAS.

Michael H 34 (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Here's my refutation. Regards this edit, the issue is not the refutation or not of the criteria for being included in the DSM.  The issue is that it portrays Warshak's opinion that PAS should be included in the DSM.  Baker, 2008 shows that most people think PAS should not be in the DSM, and I am unconvinced that there is sufficient evidence that there is even a push for it to be included.  The three criteria are:


 * 1) it is an existing phenomena (which most people don't believe)
 * 2) it is an abnormal disturbance of the child (which is dependent on PAS actually existing, see 1)
 * 3) it is a useful diagnostic category that is not better explained by a different description of the symptoms or subsumed by an existing diagnostic category (see 1)
 * The people who have advocated for PAS' inclusion in the DSM are Gardner (dead, conflict of interest, and rallied a popular call rather than making his case convincingly in journals), Warshak (in 2001, mentioning the DSM exactly once that I can see on page 9 and only saying that many other diagnoses in the DSM lack empirical verification; this is actually another argument against PAS because it means depsite having the same flaws, these other diagnoses are included), and Bernet, 2008, in the biased and problematic American Journal of Family Therapy, which according to Google Scholar hasn't been cited yet, and states "[PAS] has never been considered for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders". In order to have a more substantial discussion of how PAS should or could be integrated into the DSM, there should be more sources indicating that the APA is actually considering it.  Also, Bernet is arguing for the DSM inclusion, meaning there hasn't been support for it.  His claim that PAD is universally accepted is problematic as the references he cites are for processes, not syndromes or disorders, he's picking a new name for whatever it is, he's putting the cart before he horse (put in PAD so it can be researched, instead of "it's been researched so put it in") and assuming it exists and diagnostic criteria can even be found.  The citations he gives for comparisons to relational disorders are by publications of the APA itself, not fourth-string, low-impact family therapy journals.  Throughout he is conflating parental alienation with PAD/PAS, ignoring that most people don't recognize the latter.
 * The implication of this statement is "PAS meets these criteria and therefore should be included in the DSM." Baker is arguing for this, but many, many other sources show that PAS research is problematic and even more show that it's simply not generally accepted.  Bernet has to go back to Gardner and Warshak in 2001 for any support for inclusion.  It's undue weight.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference between PAS as a syndrome and PAS as a phenomenon is, I don't know, a red herring or something. There is a difference between parental alienation (children who don't want to see non-custodial parents in part because of the impact of the custodial parent) and parental alienation syndrome (a well-defined list of symptoms that has a single etiology and agreed-upon manifestation).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO, this paragraph amounts to a summary of hoops that supporters have to jump through to get this included in one (important) diagnostic guide. It's sort of like an article about an experimental drug summarizing drug development -- something you'd do for potential investors, but not something you'd do for an encyclopedia article.  The paragraph is fundamentally not about PA/PAS:  it's about the DSM and how it's constructed.  Perhaps information like that would be appropriate for the article about the DSM (for all I know, something about that process already in that article), but here, it's just undue emphasis on a sideshow.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "The difference between PAS as a syndrome and PAS as a phenomenon is, I don't know, a red herring or something."


 * In other words, you have no basis for your revert except for your "red herring" idea that Warshak is trying to get PAS into the DSM.


 * The difference between [acceptance of] PAS as a syndrome and [the acceptance of] PAS as a phenomenon is the other two conditions for acceptance of PAS as a syndrome described by Warshak: (1) acceptance of the symptoms as an abnormal disturbance and (2) acceptance of the usefulness of the new category and agreement that it is not better described differently or subsumed by an existing diagnostic category.


 * The statement sourced by both Warshak and Bernet is that mental health and legal professionals agree that the phenomena of PAS exists.  "The acceptance of the phenomena of PAS is nearly universal among mental health professionals."  (The statement is not about Warshak's opinion about PAS and the DSM.)  Not only is this unrefuted, but in my view, it is outrageous to assert that the scientific status of PAS is not appropriate for this article.

Michael H 34 (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * WLU stated above: " it is an existing phenomena (which most people don't believe) "


 * I challenge you to provide a source for your claim. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

(Outdent). You realize, Michael, that by reverting yet again you are editing continuing to edit war against consensus. Slow editwarring but editwarring nonetheless. You have three editors here who don't agree with your edit, and yet you insist on restoring it again and again without convincing anybody of the merits of your position. I am going to remove it again. I suggest you discuss alternative formulations for the point you would like to include and get consensus here first. --Slp1 (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I used "red herring" because I'm at a loss for a more precise term to put here. My basis is rather clearly laid out, and WAID agrees with me.  I consider it equally outrageous to consider PAS scientific or well-accepted.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You realize Slp1 that you have reverted a multiply sourced, unrefuted and clearly appropriate edit without providing even the hint of a reason for doing so except that you agree with other editors. However, as you problably know, consensus is not achieved by counting the number of editors.  You have not met my challenge.


 * "I consider it equally outrageous to consider PAS scientific or well-accepted."


 * My edit includes the words "PAS is not accepted as a syndrome." Why are you misrepresenting this edit?  You have not met my challenge.

Michael H 34 (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

WLU stated above: " it is an existing phenomena (which most people don't believe) " I challenge you to provide a source for your claim. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Emery, 2005 and Emery et al. 2005 for two.
 * Bala, 2007
 * Caplan & Cosgrove, 2004
 * Sturge & Glaser, 2000
 * Bruch 2001
 * Fortin, 2003
 * I think Hoult, 2006 also pretty much debunks PAS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Yes, I realize that I reverted your edit. It certainly has two sources, but whether is it unrefuted or clearly appropriate is obviously a matter of opinion. Contrary to your post, WLU and WAID have given multiple reasons "refuting" it, and explaining why it is not appropriate. It seems that you have one opinion about the edit and three others have a different opinion. Consensus is not, as you say, necessarily a matter of numbers; but nevertheless I don't think you'd find many that would agree that you should go ahead regardless of the multiple concerns expressed here.--Slp1 (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WLU's conflates the acceptance of PAS as a syndrome with the acceptance of the phenomena of PAS, which is one of the criteria that PAS would need to satisfy to be accepted as a syndrome. WLU also stated that people do not believe that the phenomena of PAS exists.  He will not be able to provide a source to refute Warshak and Bernet.  (WLU also reverted an edit that made the parental alienation article self contradictory.  Contrary to his assertions on this page, his revert edit on the Parental Alienation page indicates that the phenomena of PAS does exist.  Here's the edit: .)  Slp1, you have not provided any reasons of your own for not including the edit in question.  I encourage you to do so.  I have asked the community to comment on this page.  Michael H 34 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Please do not conflate acceptance of the syndrome with acceptance of the phenomena upon which the syndrome is based. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

The edit in question has been referred to the community:. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

WLU stated above: " it is an existing phenomena (which most people don't believe) " I challenge you to provide a source for your claim. You contradict your own claim based on your revert edit on the parental alienation article. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Try reading the list WLU gave above. Please also observe Warshak's first required point was the establishment that "the phenomenon exists".. Note that not only can Warshak can write grammatically (phenomena is plural and shouldn't be paired with a singular verb), but there is huge difference in semantics between there is/are "an existing phenonema" of PAS and  establishing that the "phenomenon (ie PAS) exists". There are multiple, multiple sources that would disagree that PAS exists as described by Gardner etc, as noted by WLU above. There are also multiple sources that concur that some of the characteristics (phenomena) of PAS have been observed in some children of divorcing parents. This perspective is according to my count, already mentioned in one way or another 4 times in the article, including once in the lead.  It is certainly undue weight to add it yet again, especially as it appears to be an inaccurate summary of the Warshak material in the first place. Per MH34's repeated demand that that I produce my own reasoning for opposing the edit concerned,  I should note that while I have produced some arguments, it is absolutely not required, and my simple agreement with WLU and WAID's points should certainly have been sufficient to allow my voice to be heard in this matter. --Slp1 (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the interest of transparency, fairness and process, I am going to make a suggestion. The noticeboards are very uneven in their interest on topics, and pretty reluctant to offer opinions on content disputes.  MH34, if you want a fairer opinion, and one more likely to get a reaction, I would suggest a request for comment.  Read the instructions very carefully (RFCs will linger unto the ends of time if malformed) and scrupulously follow them in posting the comment.  If you are having trouble, I suggest the helpme template on your talk page to ask for assistance in formatting and structure.  I would suggest Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology or Requests for comment/Society, sports, law, and sex as possible categories.  Post the question you want an opinion on clearly and neutrally (DO NOT SIGN YOUR POST).  Beneath that, post your own opinion, backing it up with all relevant sources and context (I would suggest brevity and the use of sources to make your points for you).  Other editors will then have the chance to post their own comments.  This is the best way to ensure a content-based decision that is transparent and fair, and they are fairly good at ending disputes (they are not absolutely binding, but are pretty influential).  Most editors, and particularly experienced editors, should respect the opinion.
 * That's my opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Unlike WLU, Slp1 did not misrepresent the edit completely. WLU stated, "I consider it equally outrageous to consider PAS scientific or well-accepted" even though the edit I have proposed includes the words "PAS is not accepted as a syndrome."

Otherwise, Slp1 mischaracterized my politely worded request for her justification of the revert as a demand, provided an off-topic opinion about Warshak's grammar, conflated the phenomena of PAS with the acceptance of PAS as a syndrome, for which agreement about the existence of the phenomena is just one of the criteria, and referred readers to the opinions of others.

These justifications for reverting a multiply and reliably sourced, uncontroversial and unrefuted edit that describes in more details the scientific status of PAS - agreement about the existence of the phenomena (children become alienated from a parent primarily due to the influence of another parent) and disagreement about its classification as a disturbance and its helpfulness.

In addition, I challenged WLU to provide a source for his claim on this page: " it is an existing phenomena (which most people don't believe) "

He did not do so. In addition, he contradicted his own claim " it is an existing phenomena (which most people don't believe) " in a revert on the parental alienation article. In this edit, I have restored the Parental alienation article: .Michael H 34 (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * That statement is in regards PAS, the parental alienation article mentions PAS in the see also section but does not discuss it at all. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the edit in question for the Parental alienation syndrome article:

Michael H 34 (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

This is the Warshak material upon which the edit is based:


 * CONCEPTUALIZING PAS
 * To establish a new diagnostic category, we must establish that: 1) the phenomenon exists; 2) it is a disturbance or deviation from the norm; and 3) its symptoms warrant a separate diagnosis and cannot more reasonably be subsumed under a previously existing category.


 * Most mental health and legal professionals agree that some children whose parents divorce develop extreme animosity toward one parent that is not justified by that parent’s behavior and, to some extent, is promulgated or supported by the other parent. That such children exist is not a point of contention in the social science literature. At issue is whether we should regard this type of disturbance as abnormal, and if so, whether a separate diagnosis for these children provides significant benefits beyond already existing labels, and whether PAS is the best way to conceptualize and label this disturbance. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * That would be parental alienation, would it not? Also, this assumes that this is not a point of contention, when evidence exists that there is contention around parental alienation as well.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the abstract from the Bernet article upon which the edit is also based:


 * Although parental alienation disorder (PAD) is a serious mental condition affecting many children and their families, it is not an official diagnosis or even mentioned in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This article presents arguments for considering PAD a diagnosis: PAD is a prototypical example of a relational disorder; the phenomenon of PAD is almost universally accepted by mental health professionals; PAD is a valid and reliable construct; adopting criteria for PAD will promote systematic research; adopting criteria will reduce the misuse of the concept of PAD; and adopting criteria will improve the treatment of children with this disorder. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Which again ignores all the critical commentary and other objections to that particular representation of the source, as well as the undue weight issues it presents. Just having a reference is not enough. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WLU's reply does not acknowledge the important distinction between acceptance of the phenomena of PAS and acceptance of PAS as a syndrome. WLU's source for the Parental alienation article also supports the acceptance of the phenomena of PAS.  Michael H 34 (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Bala and the Globe and Mail
I've removed the Globe and Mail summary of Bala's study. Even though I think it is a good source, and tailors well with what I think of PAS in general (and even my personal opinions on the matter), it has not been published yet. WP:MEDRS itself urges against citing popular press in general. I think this is particularly an issue when the original study is not available for review. We should certainly be keeping an eye out for its actual release, but personal communication between myself and Bala suggested this wouldn't be until late 2009 at the earliest. As soon as it appears, it should be reviewed and included, but until this point it is undue weight on the opinion of a (notable and expert) researcher, interpreted through an news outlet (notorious for buggering up research) that is of dubious completeness, reliability, representation, etc. We should not be citing the news story as if it were the actual study, and even if he blogs about it, on a page with this many reliable sources available, we still shouldn't be citing self-published sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A study of 145 Canadian alienation cases by law professor Nicholas Bala of Queen's University noted that in half of the cases, judges declined to make findings of parental alienation as the child was "understandably estranged from the rejected parent due to abuse or poor parenting.

Edit
Regards this edit,
 * the informaworld link is redundant to the Digital object identifier, having a url does not help the page and misleads the reader into thinking a full text is available as a url
 * The remainder is dealt with elsewhere on the page and is tendentious editing to keep adding it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WLU's edit is unacceptable. It fails to adhere to the NPOV policy:


 * "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."


 * Not only did WLU remove a significant view from the article, but he removed the "nearly universally" accepted view among mental health professionals. He has not provided any source to backup his claim that the phenomena of PAS is not accepted (as opposed to acceptance of the label syndrome), and he contradicts his own claim in his edits on the Parental alienation article.  He claims that the edit he reverted is tendentious, but I assert that compliance with the NPOV policy is not tendentious.  Michael H 34 (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * You are citing Warshak for this statement, which is from 2001. Bow et al is from 2009, clearly differentiates between parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome, is a survey on the topic rather than the single opinion of a researcher, and states that (remember, this is verbatim from the abstract) "In general, respondents were cautious and conservative/moderate in their view of PA and very reluctant to support the concept of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)."  So there's my source.  I will repeat again - parental alienation is different from parental alienation syndrome.  There's two sources that are explicit on this, and they both say that PAS is the less accepted of the two.  You can not conflate them, you can not treat them interchangeably, and you can't misrepresent sources to try to shoehorn it into whatever truth you think is out there.  I believe I've made this point explicitly several times now. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason that parental alienation is accepted is because the phenomena described by parental alienation is EXACTLY the same as the phenomena described by parental alienation syndrome. Once again, you have conflated the phenomena of PAS with its acceptance as a syndrome. Without the edit sourced by Warshak and Bernet and completely unrefuted, the article requires the NPOV tag. You have reverted not just a significant view, but the nearly universally accepted view among mental health professionals. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Not according to the sources I have seen thus. I see Warshak and Bernet as refuted, most specifically by Bow et al 2009.  If this whole thing has been based on your own definition of PAS that is not reflected in the sources, this has been a long, frustrating and fruitless exerxise for all of us.  Please supply the source that most clearly gives your definition of PAS so we can be sure we are using the same terms.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Does the article include a good definition of PAS? I expect that it does.  This definition is acceptable.
 * Statements such as "PAS is not a phenomena but a syndrome" do not communicate the idea that phenomena are potentially labeled as syndromes if (1) the phenomena exists, and (2) the phenomena is considered an abnormal disturbance and (3) the diagnostic category is considered helpful.
 * "I see Warshak and Bernet as refuted, most specifically by Bow et al 2009."
 * I wonder what Bow has to say about the phenomena of PAS. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * The definition is based on what Gardner published. Given WP:V, that's the most appropriate since no-one has come along and said there has been a change in definition over the years.  I don't care if you think it's acceptable, I care what the sources say.  I can't figure out your second point.  A syndrome has a specific definition, consensus in the community is that PAS does not meet that definition, but articles have been published about it anyway and articles have also been published saying that calling it a syndrome gives it inappropriate weight in the minds of judges and public, which is why so many scholars object to its use.  Bow's article says most people don't believe in PAS and I don't care what Bow himself thinks.  The idea that we can somehow represent the thing out there in the real world is inappropriate.  We can only summarize what others have said.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Source that backs up the page contents
I've had the chance to scan the lit review of Bow et al. 2009, and it's interesting - it essentially flags the same issues that the page does. Hopefully this isn't a copyvio, here's the relevant section (page 4/129)

Several other authors have written in support of the concept of PAS, including Cartwright (1993), Dunne and Hedrick (1994), Rand (1997a, 1997b), and Warshak (2000, 2001, 2002). The latter two authors have been the most stanch supporters of PAS and have written widely on the topic. An excellent resource on PAS is The International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome (Gardner, Sauber, & Lorandos, 2006); it has chapters written by well-known proponents of PAS.

A group of detractors have criticized the concept of PAS (Bruch, 2001; Emery, 2005; Faller, 1998a, 1998b; Johnston & Kelly, 2004a, 2004b; Kelly & Johnston, 2001; Walker, Brantley, & Rigsbee, 2004a, 2004b; Williams, 2001). Among their criticisms, these scholars have cited PAS focusing almost exclusively on the alienating parent as the etiological agent (Kelly & Johnston, 2001), PAS not meeting syndrome (Myers, 1993) or DSM-IV diagnostic criteria (Emery, 2005; Kelly & Johnston, 2001; Walker et al., 2004a, 2004b; Williams, 2001), PAS being biased against women (Bruch, 2001), PAS being viewed as junk science (Faller, 1998a, 1998b), PAS lacking adequate empirical study (Gould, 2006; Johnston & Kelly, 2004a; Kelly & Johnston, 2001; Walker et al., 2004a, 2004b; Williams, 2001), and the PAS argument being successfully used by abusive fathers in litigation to win custody from mothers who are protecting their children from exposure to risk of maltreatment and/or abuse (APA, 1996). I read this as nicely capturing the points made on the page. Since the AJFT is pretty much the exclusive venue of pro-PAS on the 'net, I've a couple observations: The full list of critical and favourable sources should be found and added to the page, with weighting for age and venue. I'm also willing to entertain the handbook as a WP:FURTHER even if it is cited as a source already. One thing I would prefer as a balancer would be an equally weighty anti-PAS source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 09:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Supporters are authors, critics are "detractors", dovetailing with the bias pointed out on RSN
 * Despite the favourable view that the AJFT has, most of the text is still about criticism
 * The Handbook is described as "excellent" and "written by well-known proponents" but there's no mention of its possible flaws (lack of opponent discussion, fairness, it's apparent lack of attention since publication - I can't find any reviews)

NPOV tag 2
This is the edit in question for the Parental alienation syndrome article:

Michael H 34 (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

This is the Warshak material upon which the edit is based:


 * CONCEPTUALIZING PAS
 * To establish a new diagnostic category, we must establish that: 1) the phenomenon exists; 2) it is a disturbance or deviation from the norm; and 3) its symptoms warrant a separate diagnosis and cannot more reasonably be subsumed under a previously existing category.


 * Most mental health and legal professionals agree that some children whose parents divorce develop extreme animosity toward one parent that is not justified by that parent’s behavior and, to some extent, is promulgated or supported by the other parent. That such children exist is not a point of contention in the social science literature. At issue is whether we should regard this type of disturbance as abnormal, and if so, whether a separate diagnosis for these children provides significant benefits beyond already existing labels, and whether PAS is the best way to conceptualize and label this disturbance. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * That would be parental alienation, would it not? Also, this assumes that this is not a point of contention, when evidence exists that there is contention around parental alienation as well.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the abstract from the Bernet article upon which the edit is also based:


 * Although parental alienation disorder (PAD) is a serious mental condition affecting many children and their families, it is not an official diagnosis or even mentioned in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This article presents arguments for considering PAD a diagnosis: PAD is a prototypical example of a relational disorder; the phenomenon of PAD is almost universally accepted by mental health professionals; PAD is a valid and reliable construct; adopting criteria for PAD will promote systematic research; adopting criteria will reduce the misuse of the concept of PAD; and adopting criteria will improve the treatment of children with this disorder. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

The edit is an essential description of the scientific status of PAS.

The reversion of the edit does not comply with NPOV policy:


 * "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

because not only has a significant view been removed, but the nearly universally accepted view among mental health professionals has been removed. Although the edit was reverted, the material in the edit has not been refuted.

Some of the justifications for reverting the edit have been irrelevant or false and include the following:


 * Warshak used incorrect grammar
 * Warshak is trying to get PAS into the DSM
 * the Warshak article is from 2001 (even though the Bernet article is from late 2008)
 * the edit is not true to the Warshak source (this is clearly false)
 * the material in the edit is a sideshow (even though the material in the edit is specifically about the scientific status of PAS)
 * Bernet refers to PAD, which is different from PAS (PAD is the same as PAS, except that PAD - parental alienation disorder uses the stronger term disorder rather than the weaker term syndrome)
 * the edit indicates that PAS is accepted and this is contradicted by multiple sources (even though the edit specifically states that PAS is NOT accepted).
 * the edit

The main and repeated justification for reverting the edit is the conflation of the acceptance of PAS and the acceptance of the phenomena of PAS as indicated by the following statement:


 * "the difference between PAS as a syndrome and PAS as a phenomenon is a red herring or something"

This statement is made even though the edit itself makes it clear that acceptance of a syndrome requires agreement on three criteria of which the acceptance of the phenomena of PAS is just one criteria.

The second justification is summarized by the following statement:


 * nobody believes in the existence of the phenomenon of PAS

I have asked for a reliable source for this claim. No source was produced. This statement is also contradicted by edits made to the article on parental alienation. The phenomena of parental alienation is the same as the phenomena of parental alienation syndrome. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Michael, your complaints here do not address my primary and ongoing concern about these sentences at all. I simply do not care what steps somebody thinks will be necessary for PAS to achieve general scientific acceptance.  This "marketing plan"  -- "Let's see, we'll have to convince people that PAS is clinically useful, and that it meets the usual standards for new syndromes, and..." -- is utterly unimportant to this article.
 * I agree that the plan is accurately represented, and it may be True™, but it is unimportant. It is also uninformative and off-topic, since this article is about PAS and not about How an idea becomes a formally recognized disorder.  It is not necessary to explain the scientific method to report scientific facts, or to explain the process for recognizing syndromes to report that this one isn't recognized (currently).
 * Do you understand my concern? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The scientific status of PAS is extensively discussed in the article. The edit I have proposed is about the scientific status of PAS.  It is not off topic.  Michael H 34 (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * No: your edit is about "what it would take to get PAS recognized".  It is not directly about the current state of recognition.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree with you. The edit is about why PAS is not scientifically accepted as a syndrome.  Michael H 34 (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Our disagreement doesn't bother me, so long as you remember that while we disagree, you don't have consensus to add the text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "nobody believes in the existence of the phenomenon of PAS. I have asked for a reliable source for this claim. No source was produced" - Bow, 2009, "In general, respondents were cautious and conservative/moderate in their view of PA and very reluctant to support the concept of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Also, they did not view PAS as meeting admissibility standards." Seems pretty clear.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You have failed to produce a source to support your claim that nobody believes in the existence of the phenomenon of PAS and furthermore, your edits on the Parental alienation article contradict your own claim. Please stop conflating acceptance of the syndrome and acceptance of the phenomena upon which the syndrome is based.  This distinction is not some sort of red herring.  Michael H 34 (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * I've been following this topic for a while and have read several of the sources, but I can't say I understand the above comment. I don't see a POV problem with the current version of the article, other than the talk-page attempts to describe PAS as a generally accepted syndrome.  I also don't see a red herring, what's that about? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "red herring" comment comes from my statement "The difference between PAS as a syndrome and PAS as a phenomenon is, I don't know, a red herring or something." from above. I was trying to get at the phenomenon "behind" PAS is parental alienation.  MH34 has made distinctions between PAS the syndrome and PAS the phenomenon, and it was my opinion that the "phenomenon" applies to parental alienation, but not PAS.  PA is moderately accepted, but ill-described.  The other is proscriptive, well-described, and not well accepted (Bow, 2009).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Jack-A-Roe has not been following closely. The edit in question includes the words "PAS is not accepted as a syndrome."

"MH34 has made distinctions between PAS the syndrome and PAS the phenomenon, and it was my opinion that the "phenomenon" applies to parental alienation, but not PAS."

WLU, I am pleased that you understand the distinction between acceptance of the phenomena and the syndrome. However, I assert that the phenomenon of PAS is the same as the phenomenon of parental alienation. I have offered a revised edit for your evaluation. The revised edit also addresses the concerns of WhatamIdoing. Please revert the edit if you disagree. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * You just hit the main problem right there. You are asserting that PAS is the same as PA.  You are very clearly wrong and are in fact contradicted by the relevant sources.  You are using your own ideas and beliefs to come to this conclusion, and based on the research, you are incorrect.  This is not just the definition of original research, it's the definition of pov-pushing and classic tendentious editing.  See the section below.  I have reverted your edits, it misrepresents the sources to an extreme degree and agan places undue weight on acceptance for parental alienation syndrome which there is no support for.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "You are asserting that PAS is the same as PA. "


 * No, I am not. Even though they are different, PAS and PA are still labels associated with the same phenomena.  I thought you understood this.  I've restored the NPOV tag.  Please don't remove it.  Please also stop asserting that my edits are tendentious.  Michael H 34 (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * According to who? "Assert" was your word choice when you said not two posts ago "I assert that the phenomenon of PAS is the same as the phenomenon of parental alienation".  What sources can you use to verify your claim that they are the same thing, and not one a subset of the other?  I understand your opinion that they are the same thing, but I disagree that sufficient scholars thinks so.
 * I'd stop calling your edits tendentious if they didn't appear to be so - you have a pattern of editing this and other articles with significant bias. You have many of the characteristics of problem editors - multiple 3RR blocks, repeating the same edit after a block, you challenge the reversion of your edits and demand justification (and when it is provided, you ignore the points), your citations back some of the facts you are adding but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw, you keep repeating the same arguments and you delete postings on your talk page without responding to them.  So what else should I call it?
 * I have replaced the tag, I meant to revert only the May 28th edits. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not mischaracterize requests as demands and please do not state that I have ignored justifications with which I do not agree.
 * Please do not post information about this topic on my talk page. I prefer that others in the Wikipedia community may review it.
 * Please also note that it was I who offered compromise wording, which you reverted.
 * Please note that the compromise wording was based on your acknowledgment of the distinction between the acceptance of the phenomenon giving rise to the syndrome and the acceptance of the syndrome. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Look, you have no consensus for your edits. You have no support from the sources.  You are failing to grasp either WP:UNDUE overall, or that this is undue weight on a single opinion that is directly contradicted by the sources.  Several editors have pointed out the problems here.  I have spent lots of time reading sources and providing verbatim quotes that rebut your assertions.  You have indicated that you are basing things on your opinon, and your interpretation of the sources is not supported by the sources themselves.  Your compromise wording was considered by independent editors to be inappropriate.  If your statements are requests and not demands, why do you keep reverting despite opposition?  And why are you misrepresenting my statements when I have repeatedly said on multiple pages that there is a difference between parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that there is a difference between parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome.

Parental alienation is the label for the phenomena upon which PAS is based. If someone states that parental alienation occurs, then he is also stating that the phenomenon of parental alienation syndrome exists. This doesn't mean that they accept PAS as a syndrome.

Shouldn't the article indicate to the reader why PAS is not accepted as a syndrome? Some believe that parental alienation is not abnormal and some believe that the label of syndrome is not helpful as a diagnostic category.

I hope this helps. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * The observation and agreement of the clinical reality of parental alienation does not mean PAS exists. Parental alienation is a common clinical observation and suggests, but does not signify, a mechanism through which parental alienation syndrome could occur.  Heat exists, but that does not mean caloric exists.  Light propagates through a void, that does not mean that the luminiferous aether exists.  A set of mutually interactive, interdependent biological components exist in all life, that doesn't mean intelligent design or irreducible complexity are viable scientific theories.  One is an observation, the other is a set of specific, testable predictions.  PAS is not accepted as a theory because of the reasons summarized on the page already and mentioned here - lack of proof, overfocus on alienating parents, not meeting the definition of a syndrome, not meeting DSM-IV criteria, sexist bias and use by abusive fathers to gain advantage in custody disputes (the latter two being moral rather than scientific proofs).  Because a an observation and plausible mechanism exists, it does not mean that any extreme and specific story that can be told about the mechanism is automatically true.  And again, our opinions do not matter, it is what the sources say, and the sources say PAS is not accepted, not well researched, not well demonstrated.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "The observation and agreement of the clinical reality of parental alienation does not mean PAS exists."


 * In my view, the question of whether or not PAS exists is not even wrong. Whether or not a syndrome exists is not something that is proven.


 * The questions are whether there is agreement that (1) parental alienation - "the phenomenon of PAS/PAD" exists (that children do have these symptoms as a result of one parent's influence), (yes) (2) these symptoms are an abnormal disturbance (no) and (3) the concept of PAS is a useful diagnosis (no).


 * The article discusses (2) to a small extent (confuses reaction to divorce with psychosis) and (3) to a much larger extent, but the article does not devote even a sentence to (1), which is multiply sourced and unrefuted. As I stated before, not only is this (the agreement that parental alienation - "the phenomenon of PAS/PAD" exists) a "significant" view, it is the nearly universally accepted view.  "This is not a point of contention in the social science literature."  This violates the NPOV policy.


 * I attempted to add information about (1) to the article (this is appropriate and necessary to comply with the NPOV policy), but it has been reverted, unjustifiably in my view. I intend to add information about (1) at a later time, and it will be a compromise edit.


 * The word "proof" is a very strong word and is not used even with powerful and accepted theories such as the Standard model, the Theory of natural selection, and the Theory of evolution.


 * The Emery article is rhetoric, and he "admits" this in the article. There is no "proof" in the social sciences.  There is acceptance or rejection.  There is agreement or disagreement.  Michael H 34 (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * You start off with "in my view". Whether a syndrome exists or not is absolutley the issue, because a syndrome is a coherent description of a fact of reality.  PAS is a whole set of eight symptoms, while parental alienation is a general observation.  So right off, your first premise is incorrect.  And while parental alienation is generally moderately accepted, PAS is strongly rejected by almost everyone.  Bow, 2009, on that very topic, doing a research paper, had this as a result.  So we're done here.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In my view, you are not even wrong. Michael H 34 (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Almost universally"
The claim that PAS is almost universally accepted comes from Bernet, 2008. I have the pdf if anyone is interested. Here are some relevant quotes:

I read this as Bernet making arguments for these claims, not stating they are a fait accompli and it's in the abstract so we can't be naive (particularly with opposing sources) and accept just the abstract.

It’ll be interesting to see if this is taken up; if so, a new page called parental alienation disorder should be created.

I read this as PAD being different from PAS. See my analysis, which is original research for the main page, but does inform how we use it. Right off the start, I see this document as primarily irrelevant to the PAS page because Bernet's definition means the substance of his discussion is not about parental alienation syndrome though obviously they are connected.

Each has a sub-heading that gives the detail. I'll focus mostly on 2; 1 is dubious and needs research, 3 is impossible as far as I know because no research has been done on this aspect of parental alienation, 4 is true, 5 is like 3 but makes a point, 6 assumes PAD exists.

The rest of the section pretty much has to be read in the text, as there are no short quotes that demonstrate, just examples of previous acceptance of what Bernet calls PAD. This is not PAS, it’s closer to parental alienation, and to say he is stating parental alienation syndrome is almost universally accepted is flatly wrong because he is talking about a different but related concept. Conflating this with PAS is an egrigious synthesis. In bullet points, here’s the summary of the section:
 * Gardner coined PAS and published about it throughout the 80s and 90s
 * Wilhelm Reich wrote about it too
 * A similar concept was mentioned in books published in 1952, 1980 and 1989
 * The APA published guidelines for divorce proceedings that do not mention parental alienation but do refer to books by Gardner
 * The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry published practice parameters for child custody evaluations in 1997 that referred to parental alienation
 * A 2005 book explained Gardner’s definition, then said that it’s not universally accepted but a parent’s attempts to disrupt relations between the other parent and the child should be noted in court
 * Problems with children of divorced parents have been extensively researched, including PAS; there’s a chapter in a new book that discusses the subject at length (this one). No google books

Despite mixing the three concepts throughout (PA, PAS, PAD), it seems quite clear that Bernet is not talking about PAS, he is talking about his own conception of a related concept called parental alienation disorder. The APA has not put it in the DSM-V, it's not a recognized clinical entity, and it's not PAS. Fidler is now published, and should be reviewed separately since Bernet basically bases his case on it. But again, this is not about parental alienation syndrome, it is about Bernet’s formulation for a new diagnostic criteria of an existing, recognized clinical entity, that fits in the same family as parental alienation syndrome but is not the same thing. So claims that PAS is "almost universally accepted" is clearly wrong, and the point should be dropped. Yes they are related, no they are not the same thing and we should not be using this article extensively throughout the page.

And on a specific note, Bow et al. 2009 is explicitly on the topic of what professionals think about parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome. They "...were cautious and conservative/moderate in their view of PA and very reluctant to support the concept of Parental Alienation Syndrome" So we have an actual study that shows that parental alienation syndrome is not well accepted. So clearly, saying PAS is almost universally accepted is wrong. Bernet should be used in the parental alienation article, minimally in this article, and the idea that PAS has almost universal acceptance should be dropped. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

PAD, PAS and PA are based on the same phenomena
"I read this as Bernet making arguments for these claims, not stating they are a fait accompli and it's in the abstract so we can't be naive (particularly with opposing sources) and accept just the abstract."


 * There are no opposing sources, and Warshak is a supporting source. Although there are some differences between the labels PAD, PAS and PA, the phenomenon giving rise to these labels are the same.

"Despite mixing the three concepts throughout (PA, PAS, PAD), it seems quite clear that Bernet is not talking about PAS, he is talking about his own conception of a related concept called parental alienation disorder. "


 * The three labels are used interchangably because they are based on the same phenomenon. Just because there are some differences between the labels PAD, PAS and PA, does not mean that they are not based on the same phenomenon.


 * In addition, the difference between PAS and PAD is the difference between a syndrome and a disorder. There is no other difference between the two. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34}}


 * Question 1. Bernet is the only reliable source who uses the term PAD as far as I can see. Michael, have you got the Bernet article? Have you read it? If not, how you can you possibly know what Bernet's definition of PAD is?
 * Question 2. What is your evidence for the statement that the three labels are used interchangeably?  Citations please, since it goes contrary to multiple reliable sources including Bala, Kelly and Johnston, etc
 * Point 3. This fixation on the word "phenomenon" is unhelpful original research as I have pointed out several times.  In this case, once again, it is plain wrong. At a very practical level, PAS is a unitary concept focussed on the child; PA is a more fluid, dynamic, continuum involving the behaviour of all family members. See Sparta, Ackerman Gould and Bala  and many others.--Slp1 (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see where I examine Bernet's specific conception of PAD (on this sub-page), and compare it to Gardner's specific conception of PAS. They are indeed related, but they are not the same thing and can't be treated the same way.  Bernet is almost pointless for the discussion of PAS, it could only really be used to demonstrate some of the tangents that have developed out of clinical observations about parental alienation.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * When a syndrome becomes accepted, they change its name to disorder. There is no other difference between PAS and PAD except for the indicated level of acceptance.  Bernet preferred the term disorder.  Years ago, Gardner agreed with with the choice of the term syndrome as opposed to disorder.  Gardner also criticized use of the term parental alienation as opposed to parental alienation syndrome.  Michael H 34 (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * "DSM-IV states specifically that all disorders contained in the volume are "syndromes or patterns" (p. xxi), and they would not be there if they were not syndromes. Once accepted, the name syndrome is changed to disorder. However, this is not automatically the pattern for nonpsychiatric disorders. Often the term syndrome becomes locked into the name and becomes so well known that changing the word syndrome to disorder may seem awkward. For example, Down’s syndrome, although well recognized, has never become Down’s disorder. Similarly, AIDS (Autoimmune Deficiency Syndrome) is a well-recognized disease but still retains the syndrome term." Michael H 34 (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Undent. As I've said already on talk:parental alienation, PAS is not accepted (Gardner never managed to convince the majority of clinicians - Bow 2009) and neither is PAD (Bernet's conception has not been picked up - google scholar has three hits for PAD, two to Gardner's discussion of a possible name change, one to Bernet, which has no citations). And there is a substantial difference between the two even in conception. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's go with reliably sourced material that is a bit more independent. Maybe  these three explanations from psychiatrists, ? Syndromes are not considered disorders until they are more acceptance and meet certain criteria, which PAS certainly has not. "When a syndrome exists and meets other criteria, duration requirements, and clinical significance, aa mental disorder can be identified".  Your action, to add the term PAD to this article, as if these criteria, including acceptance of clinical significance etc had occurred is extremely inappropriate and problematic, and I agree with its removal. --Slp1 (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the references to PAD. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Administrator's noticeboard posting
Ok, I've just about had it. I've tried referencing sources, pointing to policies, guidelines and errors in interpretation. There has been no support for the ideas claimed by Michael H 34, yet he continues to revert and edit tendentiously. Is it time to start an ANI posting regarding a topic ban? No real progress has been made despite voluminous talk page postings and contributions for numerous editors. Can anyone, particularly the new editors, see any merit to continuing to engage on this page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I invite other Wikipedia editors to review this page and the article including the proposed edit. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * An ANI posting would not review the substantive content of the page, but it will examine your conduct on it. This isn't a request for a topic review, it's a request for a ban discussion.  If this goes through, you will not be permitted to edit the page, and if you do so, you will face escalating blocks.  This is about conduct and POV-pushing, not about the page content.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Objections to edits
Here's my problems with the following edits:
 * suggested where? Also, this is undue weight on both Gardner's opinion, the harm caused by a possibly non-existent, certainly not well-accepted, syndrome; ditto for  and
 * blatant POV-pushing against consensus, substantial disagreement and misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the sources. Very clearly they are not the same thing. Ditto and ditto

Seriously, this is gross mis-representation of the sources and against consensus with no reasoning except an original research interpretation of the sources that clearly do not agree. Reverted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See my latest post above, showing that syndromes are termed "disorders" when they need certain criteria, that PAS clearly has not to date. --Slp1 (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, only the name is changed from syndrome to disorder when there is agreement that the syndrome is sufficiently accepted. Nothing about the description of the syndrome is changed when the name is changed from syndrome to disorder.  In fact, the syndrome/disorder is both a syndrome and a disorder.  WLU had argued that PAS and PAD were different and removed an edit sourced by Bernet.  Michael H 34 (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

This is from the citation of the statement attributed to Gardner:

"The Parental Alienation Syndrome Is a Form of Child Abuse"

"A parent who inculcates a PAS in a child is indeed perpetrating a form of child abuse. Specifically, it is a form of emotional abuse in that such programming may not only produce a child’s lifelong alienation from a loving parent, but lifelong psychiatric disturbance in the child as well. A parent who systematically programs a child into a state of ongoing denigration and rejection of a loving and devoted parent is exhibiting complete disregard for the alienated parent’s role in the child’s upbringing. The alienating parent causes an attenuation and even total destruction of a psychological bond that could, in the vast majority of cases, prove of great value to the child—the separated and divorced status of the parents notwithstanding. Such alienating parents exhibit a serious parenting deficit, a deficit that should be given serious consideration by courts when deciding primary custodial status. " Michael H 34 (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * As I say in my reply, so what? That's Gardner's opinion about a syndrome that no-one really accepts exists.  Attributing it to Gardner actually weakens the case for including it in the page. As for PAS = PAD, find me one source, with a verbatim quote, that says they are the same thing.   WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Amy Baker also believes that children suffer from PAS, but you deleted information attributed to her because it was sourced by a newspaper article.


 * "As for PAS = PAD, find me one source, with a verbatim quote, that says they are the same thing."


 * I do not need to do this. I provided a source that stated that syndromes are changed to disorders.  It is your belief that PAS <> PAD that is unsourced.  Michael H 34 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Wrong, Michael. Syndromes do not equal disorders. If you read the sources I provided above you would see that "A disorder is more specific than a syndrome. A disorder is also a set of symptoms and signs, but with a specified course of the illness, premorbid history and pattern of familial occurrence.". And specifically here, you do need to provide evidence that PAS and PAD are identical.  WLU having read Bernet has provided a detailed analysis of why he thinks they are not. It's up to you to provide evidence that the two are synonymous given my and WLU's evidence. Repeatedly introducing this kind of original research by equating the two is totally inappropriate. And of course, I repeat the question whether you have read anything more than the abstract of Bernet? You have never answered this important question.  You can't base an argument just from an abstract of an article that you have never fully read. --Slp1 (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"DSM-IV states specifically that all disorders contained in the volume are syndromes, and they would not be there if they were not syndromes. Once accepted the name syndrome becomes changed to disorder." Michael H 34 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

With respect to WLU's analysis of PAS and PAD, he noted with numbers the fact that all eight of the symptoms listed by Gardner are also listed by Bernet. I note that Bernet added a requirement that the symptoms must exhibit themselves for at least 2 months. This is not an additional symptom. However, Bernet did add the following: "The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, academic (occupational), or other important areas of functioning." which would remove one of the objections that Warshak discusses with reference to PAS, that it is not accepted as a disturbance. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * I have reverted again. Michael, you must stop introducing (often unverifiable) edits that do not have consensus and which appear to promote your POV. To whit.
 * Undue weight given to Gardner's (and Fathers' rights propaganda) about child abuse "theory". Bernet doesn't write about PAS but PAD, and this edit thus totally unverifiable and is original research; your  repeated attempts to conflate the two have been objected to many times by other editors.
 * . Parental alienation does not always happen because one parent denigrates the other. Once again you misrepresenting the sources.
 * I've already responded to your Warshak quote in the post above, and proved several other authorities disagree with Warshak's simplistic view. --Slp1 (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that my edits are unverifiable is incorrect.

In my view, your assertion that Gardner's attributed view was given undue weight is based on I don't like it.


 * "Parental alienation does not always happen because one parent denigrates the other."

You and Gardner may agree, but this statement contradicts Parental alienation as edited by WLU. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Even on a pure analysis basis, the addition of

"clinically significant distress" makes PAS and PAD different. This edit misrepresents Bow and Bala, and makes it look like they justify a statement which they totally do not. Bow and Bala are explicit in differentiating parental alienation and PAS. Also adds a soupcon of synthesis with Warshak and Bernet. Continuously conflating the well-recognized existence of parental alienation with the ill-accepted parental alienation syndrome, is a bad idea that is against wikipedia's policies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reworked Parental alienation to clarify the concept and expand the article. And yes, your edits are unverifiable, and original research. Claiming that Bernet asked for PAS to be included in the DSM is just plain inaccurate, which even a quick look at even the abstract makes clear. --Slp1 (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am okay with stating that Bernet proposed that PAD be added to the DSM, and only changed it to PAS because of your objection. It is inaccurate to state that PAD is different from PAS.  Michael H 34 (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Continuously conflating the well-recognized existence of parental alienation with the ill-accepted parental alienation syndrome, is a bad idea that is against wikipedia's policies."

I never conflated parental alienation with parental alienation syndrome. I distinguished the acceptance of the phenomenon underlying PAS from the acceptance of the syndrome itself, which is well sourced, reliably sourced, and represents the near universal view of mental health professionals. Reversion of the compromise edit is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

WLU, your suggestion that I have created synthesis by linking the Warshak citation and the bernet citation is grossly inaccurate and based only on your false belief that PAS is meaningfully different from PAD as described by Bernet. In your analysis comparing PAS as described by Gardner with PAD described by Berner, you correctly point out that the overlap in symptoms - 8 out of 8, but then you reached the conclusion that they are different. Michael H 34 (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Wrong. Reading more closely, you'll see that Gardner requires 8/8 for his conception, Bernet's proposed conception, which is not accepted but is just proposed, requires alignment with one parent, refusal to visit the other, at least four behaviours or attitudes, two of which are mandatory, for a specific period of time, causing impairment, without abuse.  So, PAD is both more lax (requiring only four of a possible eight behaviours required by Gardner) and more strict (specifying a time course, alignment, visitation refusal, impairment and lack of abuse).  They are different and neither are accepted.  Bow is explicit that PAS is rejected, and Bernet is presenting a proposed diagnosis that has not been picked up by anyone else.  It certainly isn't in the DSM yet.  If it does show up in the DSM, then we can add that.  If it never does, then PAD was a historical blip that had no effect on the scientific establishment and ultimately should probably be dropped.  Certainly, it shouldn't be seen as the same thing and used interchangeably.  MH34, you may believe that these items are the same, they are merely different names for the same illness, that PAD, PAS and PA are all different labels for the same box, but the research is both explicily and implicitly against you.  So stop mixing them together.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "MH34, you may believe that these items are the same, they are merely different names for the same illness, that PAD, PAS and PA are all different labels for the same box, but the research is both explicily and implicitly against you. So stop mixing them together. "


 * I will accept your distinction between PAS as proposed by Gardner and PAD proposed by Bernet.


 * The Warshak and Bernet sources both state something that you have conflated with parental alienation. The "phenomenon of PAD is nearly universally accepted among mental health professionals", and "that such children exist is not a point of contention in the social science literature."


 * Warshak and Bernet have not been contradicted by a single source. Not even one.  It is you who "mix together" the acceptance of the phenomenon underlying the syndrome and acceptance of the syndrome based on justifications that "PAS is not accepted" and even if the phenomenon exists "it does not mean that PAS exists."


 * The article totally fails to communicate this important point, and the compromise edit addressed the concern expressed by WhatamIdoing about the original proposed edit.


 * You have not come up with a legitimate reason that the compromise edit that I proposed is either improper or inappropriate, and I plan on restoring it. Justifications such as "PAS is not accepted" and "it does not mean that PAS exists" are unacceptable because they are based on a mixing together of the acceptance of the phenomenon and the acceptance of the syndrome/disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael H 34 (talk • contribs)
 * If you accept the distinction between PAS and PAD, then leave discussions of PAD out of the page beyond the minor note about Bernet suggesting the related idea on the page. Bernet has minimal use on this page.  PAD isn't the same thing as PAS, and as Bow says, PAS is not well accepted.  The page is about PAS, so should discuss other issues only briefly and tangentially.  You have also consistently ignored the article by Bow, 2009.  Why?
 * I've come up with multiple reasons why the edit is inappropriate. Objections include that it unduly conflates PAS and PAD, using syntheses and original research .  Your edits misrepresent Bernet .  PAS and PAD are different things .  The discussion of how PAS would be accepted into the DSM is incorrect because a) Bernet is talking PAD not PAS and b) it is an argument by a single researcher in a low-quality journal making a case for a novel diagnosis for a controversial concept heavily related to a substantially-rejected syndrome .  So I, and others have come up with multiple reasons why your edits are inappropriate and a "compromise" is not appropriate or necessary.  This is just edit summaries, not talk page postings, expand on these points with citations to and often quotes from sources.  So I would appreciate it if you did not say that legitimate reasons have not been raised about objections to your edits.  I would also appreciate if you didn't suggest that I am the one mixing different concepts, when I have read the sources and provided verbatim quotes from them that support my points.  The article does communicate that parental alienation is much more accepted than parental alienation syndrome, and that's about as far as it can go.  There is a separate article to discuss parental alienation alone, we point to it, and we point out that it is better accepted than PAS.
 * Please explain also why you do not believe Bow et al. justifies that PAS is not readily accepted and why you keep proposing an article that does not explicitly address the existence of PAS (Bernet, 2008) with an article that does (Bow, 2009), particularly when the latter article demonstrates that most researchers do not support the concept of PAS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The "concept" is not the phenomena underlying the proposed syndrome. Michael H 34 (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

(1) I have accepted that PAS and PAD are not identical based on your analysis, but as you pointed out they are based on the SAME eight symptoms. In other words the phenomena of PAS is the SAME as the "phenomena of PAD." It is disingenuous for you to insist otherwise.

(2) A few hours ago you stated that I was mixing up parental alienation and PAS. Now you state that "the article does communicate that parental alienation is much more accepted than parental alienation syndrome, and that's about as far as it can go."

Furthermore, recent changes have been made to the parental alienation article so that it agrees more with Gardner's preferred definition of parental alienation (sometimes it is not irrational and due to the influence of the favored parent). The recent changes to the parental alienation article make it clear that parental alienation is NOT the phenomena of PAS.

This is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE according to the NPOV policy. Warshak is perfectly clear when he states that "such children exist", and that this, the phenomena of PAS, is not a point of contention in the social science literature. According to Bernet, this is the view of nearly all mental health professionals. No source refutes either of them. This article is not in compliance with the NPOV policy.

(3) I have tailored the edit very carefully to make it clear that the agreement about the phenomenon is not the same as acceptance of the syndrome. This should not be a controversial edit. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Being based on the same 8 symptoms doesn't make them the same thing, and also there is no indication that PAD is any more accepted than PAS. It's original research to treat them as the same thing, and undue weight to place any emphasis on a prospective diagnosis which has received no real interest or acceptance in the relevant communities or by the relevant scholars.  Remember, we don't just report anything we think is important, we report what the relevant community thinks is important as represented in the appropriate reliable sources.  Can you find any sources that cite Bernet?  I couldn't.  Even if PAD "exists", it is not recognized.
 * I'm not sure what your second point is - PA is more accepted than PAS, there is a separate article on PA, and we shouldn't do much more than mention it here. Otherwise we're coatracking PA onto this article and running the risk of the reader thinking that for some reason because PA is accepted, so is PAS.  Ergo, mention is minimal.  They're different, they're discussed differently and the acceptance of a general phenomenon does not mean we can start filling the page with discussion of how how a specific syndrome is accepted.  Warshak stating, 8 years ago, in an article called "current controversies..." (i.e. A 2001 ARTICLE IS NOT CURRENT IN 2009 - clear?), that "Most mental health and legal professionals agree that some children whose parents divorce develop extreme animosity toward one parent that is not justified by that parent's behaviour and, to some extent, is promulgated as supported by the other parent.  That such children exist is not a point of contention in the social science literature" is not justification for much in an article about a different issue (that parental alienation syndrome exists and is controversial in that literature).  There's no reason to extensively discuss PA in this article.  Since this article is about the syndrome, why should we talk about the phenomenon?  The children existing with parental alienation is really kinda irrelevant in this article.  As a final point, who cares what Gardner thinks about parental alienation?  His focus was on the non-existent, non-accepted syndrome.  Citations to him on parental alienation should be minimal at best.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "why should we talk about the phenomenon?"


 * When it comes to evaluating the scientific status of the syndrome, proof is not the proper scientific criteria, acceptance among professionals is the proper criteria. In order for the syndrome to be accepted among professionals, the first criteria is that it be accepted as an existing phenomena.  The 2001 Warshak source and the 2008 Bernet source state that "the phenomenon of PAD is nearly universally accepted" (WLU has shown that PAD is based on the same 8 symptoms as PAS) and "that such children exist is not a point of contention of the social science literature."  I note that the balanced 2001 Warshak source is good enough when it is used as a source describing the controversies of PAS.  Your insistence that PAS does not exist conflates the phenomena (the existence of children with these symptoms) with the acceptance of the syndrome.  Why shouldn't this article provide this distinction in the section labeled Scientific Status?  Why do you continue to incorrectly conflate the acceptance of the phenomena and the acceptance of the syndrome?  Michael H 34 (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * (ec)Do you have any citation for your claim that "phenomena of PAS is the SAME as the "phenomena of PAD"? (whatever this means); if not, it remains your opinion and original research.
 * Bala's and Bernet's description of PA as currently in that article has almost nothing to do with Gardner's definition. Please read the Parental alienation article more closely; B and B (following Kelly and Johnston) see it as a dynamic in which involves the whole family and does not lay the responsibility on one parent, and in fact acknowledges that the "other parent" may be innocent of any alienating behaviours at all.
 * The article already states 4 times that some of the symptoms described by Gardner are recognized by others; your attempt to push in yet another mention, particularly as the information is not even in the sources cited, is tendentious advocacy plain and simple.--Slp1 (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "your attempt to push in yet another mention, particularly as the information is not even in the sources cited, is tendentious advocacy plain and simple"


 * Are you using the ad hominem argument to justify NOT including the phrase sourced by Warshak and Bernet, which clearly is about the scientific acceptance of PAS?


 * (1) In his analysis WLU has already shown that PAS and PAD are based on the IDENTICAL 8 symptoms, which are the phenomenon of PAS/PAD. The symptoms of PAS and PAD overlap completely.  PAS and PAD are not identical, but the phenomena of PAS and PAD are based on the same 8 symptoms.  It is the nearly universal acceptance of the existence of the symptoms for which Bernet is an unrefuted source.


 * (2) With the recent changes to the parental alienation article, PAS/PAD are now clearly different from parental alienation, and the phrase "parental alienation is a somewhat less controversial..." does NOT come close to being a substitute for Warshak statement "that such children exist is not a point of contention in the social science literature."


 * (3) This essential point by Warshak and Bernet is completely unrefuted. For this article to comply with the NPOV policy, the phrase sourced by Warshak must be included in the article.


 * (4) Furthermore, the sentence sourced by Robert Emery is "fighting rhetoric with rhetoric" as Robert Emery admits in the article. It is NOT scientific for "proof" to be the criteria of acceptance for a syndrome.  For this article to comply with the NPOV policy, the phrase sourced by Emery must be attributed to Emery and placed next to Faller's statement.

Disingenuous edit summary
This edit summary is quite appropriate as long as you ignore the fact that it incorporates a lot of the text reverted by myself and Slp1. Please do not give disingenuous edit summaries because it makes what extremely limited good faith that exists evapourate quickly. Also note that essentially the revert was to an earlier, unacceptable version, with the only real change being from "In 2008, psychiatrist William Bernet argued that PAS " to "In 2008, psychiatrist William Bernet argued that parental alienation disorder ". The wording as PAD was already present in the previous version, and is only replaced by reverting to the previous version that is unacceptable to Slp1 and myself, as we have clearly stated several times, because it misrepresents the research and sources. I have reverted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed PAD to PAS based on the objection of Slp1, and then I changed PAS back to parental alienation disorder based on the objection of Slp1. It is true that the edit summary failed to summarize the entire edit, which also restored reliably sourced and relevant information that was reverted based on false justifications and I Don't Like It.  I apologize for the incompleteness of the edit summary.  I was summarizing the change but needed to leave my computer in a hurry.  Michael H 34 (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Thanks for your apology regarding the edit summaries; these real life pressures do happen but I do agree, btw, that it would be helpful if you could be a bit informative in your edit summaries: "edit" or "suggested edit" is not always not helpful, and the latter implies you don't mind reversion, when often you do. I would be interested for diffs showing that I recommended one thing and then another.  My objection is and has always been that you have misrepresented sources (that I do not believe you have actually read, in any case). This time it is that neither Bernet nor Bow say that PA "is a less controversial label associated with children who reject a parent in part as a result of the influence of the other parent". Both agree that that PA can occur without any influence from the other parent. In addition, as I pointed out above, undue weight  is given to Gardner's (and FR's) "child abuse" framing of PAS, the excessive repetition (yours would be the 5th) that some of the symptoms have been recognized by other researchers, and the POV inclusion of the "alienation" terminology when "estrangement" is more neutral given the highly controversial nature of this syndrome.--Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My problem is that you reverted to a version of the page that has been objected to strenuously by myself and Slp1 for several days, with an edit summary that made it look like all you did was change a couple words. There is a substantial difference between these two pages, a difference far more than "Changed PAS to parental alienation disorder per talk page".  It's really far closer to "revert to my version".  IDon'tLikeIt is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, and also doesn't apply.  It's not mere aesthetics that makes Slp1 and myself object to the edits, we have raised our reasons at length and you have essentially ignored, misunderstood or misrepresented our points and the sources we have used to make our points.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is filled with strong justifications for the edit and your strenuous objections are baseless. It is a clear violation of the NPOV policy to not include edits that are clearly relevant, multiply sourced, not contradicted by a single source, and not just the significant view, but the nearly universally accepted view among mental health professionals. Michael H 34 (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

WLU reverted the edit again but he did not justify why he reverted the edit. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * They're the same objections I had before, I enumerate them here, in this very section. It's a bit tedious to type them out every time when it's the same objections day after day.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)