Talk:Parental alienation syndrome/Archive 8

Edit request on 27 February 2012
PAS is a syndrome. NOT a disorder or mental illness. Furthermore PAS is mistakenly Interpreted, intentionally misstated and incorrectly defined as one parent v. another parent. In reality, PAS referrs to the child or children who are victims of high conflict parents. PAS is a syndrome relating to emotionally and psychologically damaged children. The resulting PAS is actually blaming high conflict parents for years of emotional damage that kids experience. Kids who are helpless. This is NOT about men and women. This is about children and the effect men and women have on children who put hate and aggression of an ex spouse before the emotional needs of the couple's kid (s). As usual, men and women argue about PAS as if it is a syndrome used to label themselves as victims when this is about kids being victims. PAS most certainly is misleading as children aren't writing on wikipedia or practicing psychology and law yet. If you want to prove it is or is not real. Talk to kids. Ask them. NOT a council of judges as they are not alienated children. None of us are. Some of us were. Some of us have children who are, have friends with children who are. Please be true to our kids and welcome this problem as an issue which brings men and women together. PAS is a sign of psychological and emotioal child abuse. Men are just as guilty as women and this is not about gender, race, geography, politics, or adults lawyers and judges. It is about kids. The sentence

"The United States National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges rejected PAS, recommending it not be used for the consideration of child custody issues"

should be changed into

"A publication of the United States National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges that expresses points of view of the authors and do not represent official position nor policies, rejected PAS recommending it not be used for the consideration of child custody issues"

Indeed this is the original document

http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/sites/documents/0000/0081/NCFCJ_guidebook_final_2006.pdf

and the disclaimer at page 2 says

"Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."

AnnSec (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: There is no disclaimer about NCFCJ. This appears to express their view. Celestra (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

PAS recognized by the Italian Society of Child and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry
source Please update the article accordingly, I don't consider myself capable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by It.wiki:Twilight (talk • contribs) 18:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, sources need to be in English, so everybody can understand what they say...  Lova Falk     talk   19:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely not true : it is preferred to have an english source if it exists, but it does not mean that non-english source are not valid. see WP:NOENG. Bzhb (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The source, which is the society formal guidelines on child abuse, states (my translation) on paragraph 3.3: "A further form of psychological abuse may consist of the alienation of a parental figure by the other until co-construction in the child of a "Parental Alienation Syndrome"(Gardner, 1984).". Furthermore, PAS is cited in quite a few other parts of the document. -- Twi light 20:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, I'm sorry, didn't know this. Anyway, I still can't help you perche posso solo molto poco italiano. Also, I don't quite understand your translation "the alienation of a parental figure by the other until co-construction in the child".  Lova Falk     talk   07:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Is it relevant that the Italian Wikipedia has included in the article about PAS the fact that it  is recognized by the Italian Society of Child and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry as a form of psycological abuse? ( http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindrome_da_alienazione_genitoriale). Anyway, I think that the guidelines of a scientific society don’t need to describe in detail a syndrome that the professional readers are supposed to know already. I’me not a Psychiatrist, but I suppose that co-costruzione (translated “co-construction”) may mean that the development of the Parental Alienation Syndrome actively involves both  the child and the alienating parent together, on the grounds of. the "independent-thinker phenomenon”. I hope that I could make myself understood in my  english and that my contribution can be of some help for you. --62peppe (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that, unless we find an Italian-English editor with a good understanding of psychology, it is not possible to add good text with this source.  Lova Falk     talk   12:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
The page should not have been closed to editing without prior (competent) proofreading. There is a missing indefinite article in the very first sentence, which is certainly not a promising sign – and indeed, the article subsequently proves to abound with errors. Here below, I list just some of these errors, along with suggested corrections. Note that I have assumed (somewhat hastily, as it turns out) that British punctuation and spelling should prevail, as it already does in parts. However, given that Gardner is American, it seems reasonable (given Wikipedia's thoroughly crazy policy regarding varieties of English spelling, punctuation and grammar) that American rules should apply instead – assuming one can find somebody who knows them.

Here are the errors and suggested corrections (bearing in mind the readily changeable choice between British and American spelling/punctuation/grammar):

[an expert review panel and the] has a missing comma after "panel" (the comma is NOT optional here);

[as well accepted by the judiciary] should be either [as well-accepted by the judiciary] or [as being well accepted by the judiciary] (perhaps the second option is preferable);

[drawing upon his clinical experiences] should be preceded by a comma;

[The concept of one parent attempting] should be [The concept of one parent's attempting] (I know this rule has fallen out of fashion, but it remains the correct form);

[separate their child] should be [separate his or her child] or [separate the child] (as the use of "their" to designate a singular subject is just plain wrong);

[In a 1985 article, ... the alienating parent.] should be changed to [In a 1985 article, he defines PAS as "a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child-custody disputes". He continues: "Its primary manifestation is the child's campaign of denigration against the parent, a campaign that has no justification. The disorder results from the combination of indoctrinations by the alienating parent and the child's own contributions to the vilification of the alienated parent."[1] He also states, in the same article, that the indoctrination may be deliberate or unconscious on the part of the alienating parent.] (with slight but important changes in punctuation if rendered in American English);

[While Gardner initially] would be better rendered as [While he initially] (to avoid excessive repetition of the subject);

[described the mother was the alienator] should be [identified the mother as the alienator] (the term "alienator" seems to be a neologism, and might be better replaced with "alienating parent");

[he later stated both] would be better rendered as [he later stated that both] (while "that" is technically optional here, its absence gives rise to a fleeting ambiguity);

[that in his experience accusations] should be [that, in his experience, accusations];

[Gardner stated that PAS occurs] should be [He stated that PAS occurs] (once again to avoid repeating the subject unnecessarily and annoyingly);

[These include a campaign] should be [These include: a campaign] (to introduce a list of items separated by semi-colons);

[is theirs alone] should be [is made by the child alone] or [is autonomous] or [is an autonomous one];

[the favored parent] should be [the favoured parent] if British spelling is chosen;

[not just of the targeted parent but also to that] should be [not just of the targeted parent, but also of that] (with added comma and correction of wording);

[in the field."] should be [in the field".] if British rules of punctuation are chosen;

[Gardner stated that any change] should be [Gardner states that any change] (as the tense should be consistent throughout; of course, if the past tense is chosen, then that, instead, should apply throughout; the thing to avoid is the unjustified/unexplained skipping backwards and forwards that we see at various points in this article);

[and Gardner did not recommend] should be [and Gardner does not recommend] (for the same reason);

[Gardner recommended] should be [Gardner recommends];

[brainwashing was expected] should be [brainwashing is expected];

[that custody should be] would be better rendered as [that custody be];

[In addition, therapy with the child to stop alienation and remediate the damaged relationship with the targeted parent was recommended.] should be [In addition, Garner recommends therapy with the child, to stop alienation and to help repair the damaged relationship with the targeted parent.] (note that "remediate", although found in good dictionaries as an archaic adjective, does not seem to be a widely accepted verb, at least as far as dictionary-compilers are concerned; hence my suggested alternative, "repair", which has essentially the same meaning);

[Gardner recommended that] should be [Gardner recommends that] or [Gardner's recommendation is that];

[including court-ordered transfer to the alienated parent, fines, house arrest, incarceration, have been critiqued] should be [including such measures as court-ordered transfer to the alienated parent, fines, house arrest and incarceration, have been criticized] (this alternative to "criticised" is more international, and is a valid option also in British English);

[With time, Gardner revised] should be [With time, Gardner has revised];

[labeled] should be [labelled] if British spelling is chosen;

and so on.

At this point, I give up. It would have taken about a tenth of the time to make the edits directly. I wish that Wikipedia would review its policy regarding the locking of pages that are clearly not ready to be locked. Do registered editors see an "Edit" tab that normal readers don't see? If so, I may finally have a strong incentive to sign up. If not, I see little hope of ever making Wikipedia a trusted and respected encyclopaedia, given that it appears to have no (or perhaps very few) competent proofreaders to clean up locked articles. Robots can do only so much, and while many senior editors may have general competence regarding the consistent structuring and logic of Wiki pages, very few (if evidence is any kind of guide) have a thorough grasp of the rules, let alone the subtleties, of English grammar and semantics.

All this notwithstanding, I have high hopes for Wikipedia, and I shall continue to make my own small contribution as and when I can.

Finally, the well-intentioned correction suggested on 27 February 2012 is, alas, not a good one, as it includes mid-sentence changes of mood and tense that render it very nearly incomprehensible. Worse still, the PDF document cited as the original source is no longer available via the URL provided. If I had more time, and more enthusiasm, I would offer an alternative formulation, but I have already wasted too much time commenting on corrections that certainly need to be made, yet which could so easily and quickly have been made directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.147.2.49 (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
THE PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME AS A FORM OF CHILD ABUSE It is the greatest child kidnapping process that ever happened in the history of mankind and it is occurring with the help of the legal system. More than 50-60% of fathers do not see their children after divorce because of the “Inquisition Court Against Men” or commonly known as the “Family Court”. Only now with more shared custody cases more and more women suffer from Parental Alienation and this group is pushing for legitimization of this troubling phenomenon. This is not a male female issue but the issue of the person who has the physical custody who is able to inflict psychological scares on their children by psychologically wiping off the other parent.

It is important for examiners to appreciate that a parent who inculcates a PAS in a child is indeed perpetrating a form of emotional abuse in that such programming may not only produce lifelong alienation from a loving parent, but lifelong psychiatric disturbance in the child. 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 of the alienated parent's role in the child's upbringing. Such an alienating parent is bringing about a disruption 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. Physical and/or sexual abuse of a child would quickly be viewed by the court as a reason for assigning primary custody to the nonabusing parent. Emotional abuse is much more difficult to assess objectively, especially because many forms of emotional abuse are subtle and difficult to verify in a court of law. The PAS, however, is most often readily identified, and courts would do well to consider its presence a manifestation of emotional abuse by the programming parent.

One of the serious phenomenons occurring during divorce is parental alienation. The primary person responsible for the induction of a parental alienation syndrome (PAS) in a child is the litigating parent who hopes to gain leverage in a court of law by programming in the child a campaign of denigration directed against a target parent. In most cases alienated parents are relatively helpless to protect themselves from the indoctrinations and the destruction of what was once a good, loving bond. They turn to the courts for help and, in most cases in my experience, have suffered even greater frustration and despair because of the court’s failure to meaningfully provide them with assistance. Indoctrinating a parental alienation syndrome into a child is a form of emotional abuse because such programming results in the attenuation and even destruction of the child’s bond with a good, loving parent.

In PAS, the affection of the alienating parent is conditioned on the PAS child’s compliance with the programmed campaign of denigration and, in many cases, the ability to provide additional "ammunition" against the target parent. As mentioned, the PAS child’s love for the programmer has less to do with affection than fear of rejection if the child does not join in with the programmer against the alienated parent. Sources: http://psychologistswithnogod.com/fatherlessmotherless-nation-and-the-family-courts.aspx http://psychologistswithnogod.com/definition-of-the-parental-alienation-syndrome.aspx

75.97.224.86 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Sometimes protection is necessary to prevent disruption, disregarding the quality of the article at the time. Since the article was protected four years ago I've asked the user who protected it if they have an objection to the protection being lowered, which would allow you to make the edits yourself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. It would help if you would express the change you want to make in a "please change X to Y" manner; it is difficult to tell where you would like this text inserted or what text in the article it is intended to replace. That is somewhat moot since much of the text is not encyclopedic and needs to be re-written in a more neutral tone to become part of the encyclopedia. Also, the two sources you mention are to a site which appears to be self-published. References on the facts there should be attributed to the author and may quicky run into a problem of undue weight. Thanks again and please let me know if I can help you shape this up and get it into the article. Regards, Celestra (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I oppose the introduction of this material. I can't imagine that any serious WP editor would consider wwww.psychologistswithnogod.com to be any sort of reliable source, and the polemic nature of the proposed material is also thoroughly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Slp1 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've struck my comment, I was referring to the section above (I thought it was the same user who had just placed the request template halfway through their reequest. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks and no problem, Callanecc, that makes total sense.Slp1 (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"Later" work by Gardner and PAS that was releases in peer reviewed scientific journals? Where?
This line needs a source or examples of Gardner's work supporting his PAS that was published and peer reviewed "The initial work was self-published by Gardner, but later papers were released in peer reviewed scientific journals" I believe this statement to be false. If appropriate documentation is not provided, it should be deleted. Kristijrn (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement is true. While a this point there are in fact too many articles in peer-reviewed medical and legal literature to list here, I will provide a few examples and revise the article as requested as time allows. Please note that I am not maintaining any argument about the quality or validity of the research listed below. I am just saying it exists.


 * "Parental Alienation Syndrome". Psikiyatride Guncel Yaklasimlar - Current Approaches in Psychiatry. Year: 2011, Volume: 3, Issue: 3
 * "The Parental Alienation Syndrome:An Analysis of Sixteen Selected Cases". John E. Dunne MD & Marsha Hedricka. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. Volume 21, Issue 3-4, 1994.
 * "Expanding the parameters of parental alienation syndrome". Glenn F. Cartwright. The American Journal of Family Therapy. Volume 21, Issue 3, 1993
 * "Understanding and collaboratively treating Parental Alienation Syndrome". Waldron, K. H., & Joanes, D. E.  American Journal of Family Law, 10(3), 121–133. (1996).
 * "Assessing for alienation in child custody and access evaluations". Williams, Justice R. J. Family Court Review, 39(3), 267–281. (2001).


 * The self-published work by Gardner came from a company called Creative Therapeutics. Jaydubya93 (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Barbara Kay
I removed this paragraph and the accompanying sentence in the lead. The claim that PAS is covered in the DSM under "parental-child-relational problem" is sourced to an opinion piece by columnist Barbara Kaye and an activist organization. This content was removed once before but was restored without prior discussion. Kay's claim that PAS is covered in the DSM is contradicted by the American Psychitaric Association: Disorders Not Accepted for Sections 2 or 3 ... Parental alienation syndrome. In addition, the definition of PAS and parental-child-relational problem are very different. Please do not restore Kay's claims again without going through the Reliable sourced noticeboard first and ascertaining that Kay is a reliable source for this claim. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Brazil section
The section about the Brazilian law that criminalizes parental alienation should be removed because PAS and parental alienation are related but separate concepts. The law applies to parental alienation; the legal text clearly differentiates between PAS and PA ("Neste ponto, faz-se necessário a diferenciação entre Alienação Parental (AP) e Síndrome da Alienação Parental (SAP).") I removed the paragraph, but it was restored with the claim that the law refers to PAS. The law mentions the PAS but only to draw a distinction between PAS and PA. The second source states that PAS is not the object of the law: "Por ser patologia, a síndrome da alienação parental não é o objeto do presente artigo, vez que a abordagem aqui apresentada é jurídica." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The law clearly referred to and warned about the development of PAS (via Google Translate):
 * 7 FINAL
 * The consequences generated by the imposition of particular interest to parents over the interests of children are deep, such as the development of the Parental Alienation Syndrome. We stress the importance of family as structuring power for good training, intellectual and psychic children and adolescents, especially in demonstrating that the fundamental rights inherent to these must be respected regardless of the form in which they present their family, taking into the large number of separations and divorces.
 * Why the rush to delete relevant content?
 * Here is a compromise if you are sensitive to the word "syndrome" -- simply move the content to the parental alienation article. Memills (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The law refers to PAS only insofar as to distinguish it from PA and clarify that PAS isn't the object of the law. There is no denying that the first source doesn't even mention PAS and the second source states that the law isn't about PAS. Thus, your reinsertion of the paragraph was unconstructive. As for the matter of a possible topic ban violation, I'll ask an uninvolved admin if your topic ban applies to this page. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The US Section
I really do not want to wade into some big back-and-forth about the men's rights movement, or whatever it calls itself.

I came across this page reviewing another subject, and noticed the discussion on whether PAS is admissible in courts in the united states. The sections reads very oddly to a lawyer -- I've practiced for 12 years, and the last time I heard of someone analyzing a dozen cases and saying "but they aren't precedential" was in law school. It's the kind of thing a law student would say; it makes no sense, really.

Looking at the journal article itself, the author is this person: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/david-p-hoult-v-jennifer-hoult  Apparently Ms. Hoult was one of the original repressed memory child-molestation plaintiffs. This is a theory that is now, of course, utterly discredited in the psychological and legal communities. In any event, Ms. Hoult, who was a party to several cases in which the issue was whether her recovered memories of child molestation might be false. Ms. Hoult is one of the only lawyers who continues to advocate for the theory, and at this point may be the only one. It's also the remaining basis of her legal practice.

This is as far from a "reliable source" as its possible for something to be. I suggest either noting the controversy, or just taking out the claim in the "United States" section about legal admissibility.

Djcheburashka (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

DRP v. MPP, 484 S.W.3d 822 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), and the cases cited therein, discuss "undermining the authority" of the other parent as valid grounds for findings of contempt of lawful custody orders consistent with Missouri's stated public policy of children knowing both their parents. While this does not use the PAS terminology, it is an example of the PA gist getting recognized by a U.S. precedent. 65.118.97.26 (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Parental alienation syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apa.org/pi/pii/familyvio/issue5.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005021044/http://dsmfacts.org/materials/american-psychiatric-association-board-of-trustees-approves-dsm-5/ to http://dsmfacts.org/materials/american-psychiatric-association-board-of-trustees-approves-dsm-5/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425065901/http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_16_number_6_2003.html to http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_16_number_6_2003.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829050853/http://www.rhfinc.org.au/docs/controversies.pdf to http://www.rhfinc.org.au/docs/controversies.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Improvements to article: PAS vs PA etc
I'd like to start making a number of improvements to this article's accuracy, English and readability.

The clarity of the first paragraph is particularly important in Wikipedia articles and, in this particular one, the prior description of "a disorder in which a child ... belittles and insults one parent without justification, due to ... the child's own attempts to denigrate the target parent" does not make good sense. More broadly, the article appears primarily to be about the controversy surrounding the use of the term and could perhaps better explain Gardner's original formulation.

I think it's also important, up-front, to state the relationship between PAS and "parental alienation" but, in doing so, we need to recognise that there are many different views among academics, psychologists, and activists, on this. I think the intro-line: "This article is about a childhood disorder. For the manipulation of a child's relationship with a parent, see Parental Alienation" is too definitive, and thus misleading. Similarly, the line brought forward today - "An early proponent of parental alienation syndrome argued that parental alienation involves a focus on the parent, while parental alienation syndrome also involves hatred and vilification of a targeted parent by the child.[2]" - does not well distinguish the terms and isn't a particularly convincing reference. Parental alienation is not really "a related concept" either; it's better described as "a derived term".

It's tricky coming up with a line that everyone will accept on this, but I'd propose removing those lines/comments and adding something along the following lines to the end of the first para: "Because of academic concerns about the validity of the word "syndrome", parental alienation syndrome is not widely accepted as a term. However, the derived term parental alienation is now commonly used in academic literature to refer to the process of psychologically manipulating a child into rejecting family members and, sometimes, to the result or impact of this process too." Skythrops (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skythrops (talk • contribs) 00:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Parental alienation" is used to describe actions by a parent that, intentionally or not, cause a child to become alienated from the other parent. It may not have a precise meaning, but it's a generally understandable term by virtue of the plain language meaning of the words "parental" and "alienation". Tacking the word "syndrome" onto the end and trying to turn it into a diagnosable condition raises two problems: First, there is no broad agreement that such a syndrome exists, let alone what its elements should be or how many elements would have to be demonstrated for a diagnosis; and second, because it shifts the focus from the individual (a parent who commits or displays one or more alienating acts or behaviors) to parent-child relationships and effect on the child. Although I am not sure when the precise term was first used, the concept of "parental alienation" is not derived from "parental alienation syndrome" -- quite the opposite. You will find references to parental conduct that potentially alienates a child from the other parent going back to the 1950's (|for example). Richard A. Gardner did not propose PAS until @1985. Arllaw (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I’d like to address the above response by Arllaw and, in further discussion, the recent removal of edits to the article by the same author. I hope that, via this section, all authors can collaborate to produce the best possible article.

1)	“parental alienation” actually has multiple and different usages by different academic authors; it is not only “used to describe actions by a parent …”. The problem is not so much that the term “does not have a precise meaning”, as that different authors use it in significantly different ways – and, often, without identifying, or even realizing, that they’re doing so;

2)	The fact that “parental” and “alienation” are plain language words is not actually helpful in this context. The term “parental alienation” is being used as jargon, and it’s important to recognize this; it’s come to have a meaning somewhat distinct from its common-usage components and, as a result, it is not, as a matter of fact, “generally understandable”. If you survey people in the street (and such research is being done), the vast majority of people cannot tell you what “parental alienation” means (even though they all know what a “parent” is, and most have some understanding of the word “alienation”). Even the word alienation, though, has multiple, distinct uses which does not help in this context either;

3)	Gardner did not simply “tack the word” “syndrome” onto a pre-existing, or understood, term (parental alienation), he created the entire term: parental alienation syndrome;

4)	Agreed, there is no broad agreement, no consensus, that such a syndrome exists. And, it is more accurate in this article to say just that – namely, that there is no consensus – rather than to allow statements that may suggest that it is either accepted, or that it is false. History shows that it can take decades for “syndromes” to be reviewed/accepted by key authorities, or for those same institutions to remove disorders that should never have been recognized;

5)	I don’t understand the comment about “shifting the focus” from adult to child. PAS refers explicitly to a suite of behavioral signs shown by children; PA is used in varied, generally broader ways and can refer to children or adults, and to results or processes;

6)	If anyone is “not sure when the precise term was first used”, then it would be helpful not to delete edits that give an indication of the history. If any author has any evidence of the term “parental alienation” having been used prior to Gardner’s coining the term “parental alienation syndrome”, please provide it in this section. I have no evidence that there is any, despite considerable research. If it is not self-evident that the term [not the concept of] “parental alienation” is, in fact, derived directly from Gardner’s original term “parental alienation syndrome”, and that its usage has arisen subsequent to, and in response to, Gardner’s original proposition, then I would refer you to many of the authors cited in this article who can explain (and have, in some cases, done so) how they adopted the truncated form PA in part because of the dispute over whether or not PAS could legitimately be called a syndrome;

7)	There are indeed references to the broader concept, and to the sort of parental conduct that leads to PA/PAS, well before Gardner (1985), but they go back well before the 1950s or even 1940s, as currently cited in the article - into centuries past. To avoid arbitrariness, and to put this phenomenon in context, I think it is important to give a brief, but more accurate, overview. Skythrops (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody is opposed to greater accuracy, but sometimes despite the best of intentions attempts at clarification end up muddying the waters. How about making a proposal here for discussion? Arllaw (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I will add a new version of the opening paragraph here for consideration (in addition to my general comments above), though it is generally more efficient to make changes to the article itself - especially when they are so obvious as, for instance, actually citing the original paper (Gardner, 1985) that introduced the term "parental alienation syndrome", or removing highly suspect refs such as Hoult (2006) that have been given inappropriate weight. [See comments in sections above re this particular ref.] The recent reversions of the article to its older form keep the waters muddy, in my view, and I think we should all be aware of the spirit of Wikipedia's three-revert rule.Skythrops (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)