User:Frobozz1/sandbox

Revert as of 18:35, 18 March 2021 - Slp! Revert as of 14:03, 18 March 2021 - Slp! Revert as of 19:19, 17 March 2021 - Slp! Revert as of 13:09, 17 March 2021 - Arllaw Revert as of 03:04, 17 March 2021 - Arllaw Revert as of 17:38, 13 March 2021 - Arllaw Revert as of 01:04, 13 March 2021 - Arllaw Revert as of 22:34, 11 March 2021 - Arllaw Revert as of 23:30, 10 March 2021 - Slp! Revert as of 17:25, 10 March 2021 - Slp!

They are insistently disputing the reliability of apparently good sources, erecting a wall of opposition to interested consensus. This prompted me to seek consensus on and attempt to get the book reliability judged on the Reliable sources noticeboard.

WHO classifies PA as Judicial term: https://reseauiml.wordpress.com/2020/02/23/world-health-organization-removes-parental-alienation-from-its-classification-index/

"Parental alienation has been removed from the ICD-11 classification as it is a judicial term and issue. Its inclusion for coding purposes in the ICD-11 will not contribute to valid or meaningful health statistics."

The second impeachment of President Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, occurred on January 13, 2021, seven days before the inauguration of his successor. It was the fourth Presidential impeachment and set several historical precedents. Although only passed by a slight margin of 54% (232) compared to President Andrew Johnson's 73% (126), this was the most bipartisan impeachment vote to date with 4.7% (10) representatives voting along with a first-ever unanimous 100% (222) representatives. This was the fourth time articles passed to disqualify a person from office however all three previous disqualifications had impeached civil officers. Because the President is elected rather than commissioned, this was the first time an elected seat who has never held any office under the United States was voted to be disqualified from ever holding any office under the United States.

The House of Representatives of the 117th U.S. Congress adopted one article of impeachment against Trump of "incitement of insurrection", alleging that the President incited the January 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol. These events were preceded by numerous unsuccessful alleged attempts by the President to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, as well as repeatedly asserting the election results were caused by "widespread voter fraud" relying on evidence seen to be meritless.

Yes it is.

Parental Alienation

 * If there is nothing else, I see nothing offensive about the content suggested. That is my opinion. Maybe you can find better sources to make your point, and fix it again at that time.
 * Three sources are presented. Let's begin once more with humbly acknowledging that the truth of what the sources are saying is not in our purview. This article especially needs us to be open. It is after all a social science, in part, and a legal topic, in part.
 * A book is written by persons who advocate for the topic of the book. How novel! (pardon the pun). But about the book: Is it reliably sourced? Yes, or no. It would appear that the book is used in many places already and you have posted that is is RS; questioning only prominence of the opinions. WP:RS does not regard prominence, nor does WP:MAINSTREAM care about "minority" as a measure of numbers of persons authoring the opinions: That logic is circular. The citation states that the majority opinion (APA) has recognized (not "diagnosed") a thing –"the concept of PA", written by "three people"; thus the opinion is "minority." This does not follow. It becomes necessary to offer by citation that a majority opinion claims the APA said that "the concept" is not in the book; by which you will have created a notable debate about what is in the book, and created room for even more content.
 * There is now the technical bit about the DSM codes not being diagnostic (as the ones on our Wiki page are not?). Well then, there is a good deal of the Internet which needs its language cleaned. The correct chapter in the DSM-5 at print was "Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention." This is a pedantic argument for exclusion. The source uses common language jargon vice the technical term of art. This is easily explained but hardly necessary. Being "factually wrong," is not a criteria an editor is to judge. It becomes the burden of the editor to locate a citation that states that it is "factually wrong," and then WP:FIXIT. So we move along to this: Is the citation correctly representing the source? In a word, yes. Certainly there are snippets to be found which do not say "parental alienation" was coded into the DSM-5 but the other snippet quoted exactly does in fact say "parental alienation is recognized as a manifestation of three disorders identified in the DSM-V." On this resource alone this discussion has not found cause to delete the entire section discussing the DSM-5; the citation is reliably sourced and verifiable. All elements for inclusion are met. But let's see the other sources.
 * The Journal of the Judicial Power of the State of Nuevo Leon is WP:RSLAW and not WP:RSMED. Granted. It makes a claim of recognition under law and no more.
 * For the sake of completeness, the "Whitcomb" article is sought to be excluded on what appears to be failed verification grounds. Well certainly you have a point that Whitcomb, whose exact passage is copied into the article, knew only the names of the disorders and not the codes. But the article did accurately include the names, and then appended the Diagnostic codes from the other sources. Is that WP:SYNTH? Maybe removing the codes from the list would WP:FIXIT. I see that as trivial personally, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not called for here.
 * There is not an argument within any citation here that asserts the APA has excluded "the concept" of PA from the manual, so this feels very much WP:MAINSTREAM. Can we find anything within Wikipedia policy that the content warrants omission?
 * If there is nothing else, I see nothing offensive about the content suggested. That is my opinion. Maybe you can find better sources to make your point, and fix it again at that time.

df
User:Frobozz1/PA-design

Your recent editing history at Article (like Parental Alienation?) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Additional things to say text