Talk:Parental alienation syndrome/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Parental alienation syndrome. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Such children exist

Current text, located at the bottom of the section "Scientific status":

While PAS is not accepted as a syndrome, parental alienation is a somewhat less controversial dynamic that has appeared in the mental health and legal literature.(Bow 2009; Bala, 2007)

Proposed text for the first sentence of the same section:

PAS is not accepted as a syndrome. Parental alienation is a less controversial term sometimes associated with children who become alienated from a parent,(Bow, 2009; Bala, 2007) and the existence of children that chronically and irrationally reject a parent in part as a result of the influence of the other parent is not a point of contention in the social science literature.(Warshak, 2001; Bernet, 2008) PAS is not accepted as a syndrome because there is disagreement about whether or not these symptoms are an abnormal disturbance and whether or not PAS is a helpful new diagnostic category.(Warshak, 2001)

Discussion - children exist

I reduced the "such children exist" portion of the first proposed edit to just a phrase based on your statement that the edit as originally constructed was "emphasis on a side show." WLU recently asked why the article must include a statement about the phenomena of PAS (the existence of the symptoms in children). The reason for this is that we are writing a NPOV article and the existence of the phenomena - that such children exhibit these symptoms is one of the criteria used to evaluate the "Scientific Status" of any syndrome including PAS. Please see the paragraph titled "Conceptualizing PAS" from the Warshak source. [1] The Warshak source is not refuted by any other source. If there is agreement that PAD is based on the same 8 symptoms as PAS, then the Warshak source is supported by the Bernet source who stated that "the phenomena of PAD is nearly universally accepted among mental health professionals."

Objections to this edit have been based on arguments that can be summarized as "PAS is not accepted", which failed to distinguish between the acceptance of the syndrome and acceptance of "the phenomenon" [underlying the] syndrome (or on the acceptance of the phenomenon of the disorder, which is based on the same eight symptoms). These objections also did not appreciate the statement leading the sentence that "PAS is not accepted as a syndrome...." Michael H 34 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Refactored for readability. I would suggest allowing other editors to summarize their objections in their own words. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentence should be at the end of the section because the page is not about parental alienation, it is about parental alienation syndrome and though related, they are not identical. Trying to figure out if it's less or significantly less controversial than PAS will be difficult, I would suggest replacing "less controversial" with "more accepted". I think all that is needed is a summary definition of parental alienation. Overall, I think the best phrasing would be , such as "While PAS is not accepted as a syndrome, the concept of parental alienation (a social dynamic in which a child engaged in a custody dispute expresses unreasonably strong dislike of a parent) is more accepted by mental health and legal professionals.(Bow, 2009)" I don't think it's helpful to include a "why PAS is rejected" because that's what the whole section is about and Warshak's summary is unnecessary. That PA is not a point of contention is contradicted by Bow and Bernet - it's still controversial in definition and research even if the existence is more accepted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead sentence of this section should be about the scientific status of Parental Alienation Syndrome, and the proposed sentence is about the scientific status of Parental Alienation Syndrome. The proposed sentence is NOT "about parental alienation", it is about the scientific status of Parental Alienation Syndrome: (1) the existence of the phenomenon (that such children exist) is accepted and (2) the syndrome is not accepted.

"That PA is not a point of contention is contradicted by Bow and Bernet"

The Bernet citation supports the edit sourced by Warshak. Bernet states that "the phenomena of PAD (same phenomena as PAS - same 8 symptoms) is nearly universally accepted by mental health professionals." Bow does not contradict that "such children exist." The proposed edit does not state that the concept of PAS is accepted. It states that PAS is not accepted, but it also states that children with these symptoms exist (this is the phenomena of PAS). The Waldron source also supports the existence of the phenomena and even the very critical Drozd source supports the statement that "such children exist."

"I don't think it's helpful to include a "why PAS is rejected" because that's what the whole section is about and Warshak's summary is unnecessary.

The Warshak citation is supported by the Bernet source, is not refuted by a single source and provides the reader with unbiased information about why PAS is not accepted. Inclusion of this unbiased information should not be controversial! Of course, the acceptance that such children exist, the first criteria for a syndrome to be accepted as a syndrome, is relevant for this article and in this section!!!!

I am limiting my comments to this particular proposed edit and I am not extending my discussion to the edit sourced by Emery also included in the section titled Scientific Status. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

The first sentence in the current section already summarizes the section - "PAS has been described as incomplete, simplistic and erroneous..." and I see no advantage to including any more. The proposed summary sentence does not have the extensive citations to PAS' scientific status, and to me it seems to assume that the symptoms as described exist, and that it's an undiscovered or under-researched diagnostic category. I prefer the current cited criticisms and descriptions. Criticisms are not "biased" because they are criticisms anymore than positive reviews are unbiased because they include criticisms. Sources are reliable, or they are not, and the current sources are reliable.

Stating that there is evidence that "the phenomenon" (behind?) PAS/D exists (presumably parental alienation?) is WP:OR if you're citing Warshak or Bernet, because they're not about parental alienation, they're about PAS and PAD respectively and this conflates the vague entity that Bernet proposes to include in the DSM with the specific syndrome of PAS. PAD and PAS are not the same thing, and there is no indication that PAD has any more acceptance than PAS does. It appears thrice on Google scholar- two references by Gardner to say "PAS may one day become PAD", and once in Bernet. It really has minimal impact on PAS, certainly shouldn't get much more than one sentence and should be extensively cited.

Parental alienation is a social dynamic, which isn't the same thing as a coherent diagnosis, syndrome or disorder. I don't know if it's a symptom either. As I said, I think PA should stay at the bottom, as it's a tangent for PAS. Perhaps it would be clearer to combine the two proposed sections if you have a different or definite order in mind. PA as far as I know does not have a series of agreed-upon, proscriptive definitions or criteria, it's still exploratory, tentative, case-study based and undeveloped even if the clinical impressions are that there is something there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am correcting the grammar ("that" and "who" are interchangeable; the important point is that the clause is a restrictive one and thus must not be offset by commas) in the proposed text. Do I understand correctly that the third blockquote is a proposed addition (=entirely new text, not replacing anything else)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael, the fact that a claim is not disputed/refuted/contradicted does not mean that the claim is important enough to include. Omitting needless details should not be construed as an editorial statement that the details are wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It may also be worth agreeing upon definitions of parental alienation, parental alienation syndrome, parental alienation disorder and the phenomenon of parental alienation/syndrome/disorder, so we know we're working from the same topic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the added sentences are proposed additions to follow the first sentence and are not replacing anything else.

The details supported by Warshak are not needless. We already agree that details about the scientific status of the syndrome are relevant in the section labeled scientific status. As noted above by WLU, the section labeled Scientific Status is all about why PAS is not accepted as a syndrome. WLU states that "we do not need" the Warshak citation for this section. I strongly disagree. I assert that the sentence supported by the Emery citation is not a substitute for the Warshak sentences in a NPOV article.

The Warshak citation, supported by other sources and not contradicted by any other source, is reliable, notable and also used as a citation for criticism of PAS. In my view, it is improper and a violation of the NPOV policy to ignore the Warshak citation in the section labeled Scientific Status. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

"The proposed summary sentence does not have the extensive citations to PAS' scientific status, and to me it seems to assume that the symptoms as described exist, and that it's an undiscovered or under-researched diagnostic category."

This is a fundamental point of disagreement between WLU and me. The Warshak and Bernet sources are very clear that the "symptoms as described" DO exist in some children and that this is "not a point of contention in the social science literature." Furthermore the Warshak and Bernet sources are supported by other sources (Waldron and the very critical Drozd), and not contradicted by any other source. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Please allow me to provide more detail about the Bernet statement and PAD. Bernet states that the "phenomena of PAD is nearly universally accepted by mental health professionals." PAD stands for parental alienation disorder. WLU did a careful analysis comparing PAS as defined by Gardner and PAD as defined by Bernet and discovered some differences. I accept his analysis as fair and accurate. His analysis also concluded that PAS and PAD are based on the same 8 symptoms. When Bernet states that "phenomena of PAD is nearly universally accepted by mental health professionals" he means that children with these 8 symptoms exist. In my view, it is not proper to give no weight to the Bernet source based on the differences between PAS as defined by Gardner and PAD as defined by Bernet because they are based on the same 8 symptoms. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I have been away from the internet for several days, so am only now joining in. Thank you, WAID, for getting it started. I strongly disagree with the proposed addition, for the following reasons:

It is a misrepresentation of sources: Bernet does not say the existence of children that chronically and irrationally reject a parent in part as a result of the influence of the other parent is not a point of contention in the social science literature.; the statement is also contradicted by both the Bow and Baker studies.
The notion that a PA-like dynamic more is accepted is already mentioned three other times in the article. In addition, this section is about PAS not about PA and this seems a coatrack, especially as sources that support PAS/PAD are being used in a sentence notionally about PA.
I don't think we need Warshak's rather partisan view about why and how a syndrome is accepted or not. Not only do I not think it is relevant, but as far as I can see he's not an expert in DSM decision-making protocol to make his view noteworthy, especially as we have multiple more independent sources who have much fuller descriptions about why PAS is not accepted.--Slp1 (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The proposed change (I'm ignoring the proposed addition for the moment) results in changing the focus from "what happens" to "the term and how it is applied". Is this a desirable change? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the section should be read as a whole. The addition of the lead sentences (1) does not change the focus of the entire section and (2) does not cause the section to be disjoint. The proposed lead sentence and the proposed additional sentences fairly summarize the "Scientific Status", and the rest of the section then communicates why PAS is not accepted as a syndrome (1) it is not universally accepted as a disturbance ("view the reaction to divorce as a psychosis") and (2) it is not accepted as a new useful diagnosis (the rest of the criticisms). As an aside, I'll add that the symptoms of the children are a part of "what happens." Michael H 34 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Michael

I'm not sure I've been clear. I follow several articles on controversial topics. One approach is to quit talking about the thing itself and start talking about the label and how it's applied (resulting occasionally in what the WikiProject Philosophy folks told me is the Map–territory relation fallacy). The section primarily talks about the behavioral phenomenon, and your proposed changes shift that focus (not entirely unreasonably) away from the phenomenon and towards the label. Is this an intentional and desirable change, or should we consider a little copyediting to shift it back to a discussion about the thing itself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me to clarify my comments also. I ask you to consider that the proposed sentences, except for one phrase, are directly about the "phenomenon." Phenomenon is the exact word that Bernet uses. Bernet wrote that "...the phenomenon of PAD is nearly universally accepted by mental health professionals." (As noted above, PAD is based on the same 8 symptoms as PAS.)

If you believe that the phrase about parental alienation should be removed from the proposed edit, then I would agree. If you believe that a sentence about parental alienation as a label for the phenomenon should be added lower in the section labeled Scientific Status, then I would agree that this is an appropriate edit. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

It sounds like your focus on the term instead of the behavior is unintentional. Would you accept this version as saying essentially the same thing as you propose above? (Note that this doesn't represent a commitment on my part to support this text; I'm just trying to have a decent piece of prose to evaluate.)

PAS is not accepted as a syndrome. Parental alienation is a less controversial ~~term~~ phenomenon' sometimes ~~associated with~~ seen in children who become alienated from a parent,(Bow, 2009; Bala, 2007) ~~and the existence of~~ That some children ~~that~~ chronically and irrationally reject a parent in part as a result of the influence of the other parent is not a point of contention in the social science literature.(Warshak, 2001; Bernet, 2008) PAS, however, is not accepted as a syndrome because there is disagreement about whether or not these symptoms are an abnormal disturbance and whether or not PAS is a helpful new diagnostic category.(Warshak, 2001)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In my view that your analysis was correct. In addition, the term parental alienation has multiple meanings and should not be defined here to be constrained to the phenomenon. Sometimes parental alienation refers to the condition of the child in a general sense without reference to whether or not the alienation is rationale or justified, sometimes parental alienation refers to the condition of the child in a specific sense (the condition of the child that is irrational and unjustified and due in part to the behavior of the alienating parent) and is used a aubstitute term for parental alienation syndrome, and sometimes parental alienation refers not to the condition of the child at all, but to the alienating behavior of the alienating parent.

As a result, I propose the following edit:

PAS is not accepted as a syndrome. ~~Parental alienation is a less controversial phenomenon sometimes seen in children who become alienated from a parent,(Bow, 2009; Bala, 2007) and the existence of~~ That some children chronically and irrationally reject a parent in part as a result of the influence of the other parent is not a point of contention in the social science literature.(Warshak, 2001; Bernet, 2008) PAS, however, is not accepted as a syndrome because there is disagreement about whether or not these symptoms are an abnormal disturbance and whether or not PAS is a helpful new diagnostic category.(Warshak, 2001)

Michael H 34 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Redating section to prevent archiving. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

a typical case video

i suggest for the wikipedia a link to a short videodocumentary about a tipycal pas case well representing what pas can be, this is the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HymM_S_y3Mc regards, ross —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.16.124.123 (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

general comments

I think that this article is quite misleading and is focused on what PAS is not, as opposed to what it is. It also spend an aweful lot of effort to discredit it as a field of study. Many theories take a long time to be accepted into 'the books' but Wikipedia is no place to promote propaganda one way or the other.

the fact is there is a lot of research on both sides of the aisle, and courts, whether they call it PAS or not, are utilizing several of the concepts.

Whoever is owning the actual editing of this page should remove all of the 'PAS is not......' language.. It is ill appropriate and not in alignment with the rest of Wikipedia.

It is an unfair representation of an emerging, (yet admittedly controversial) area.

Drgunillamartin (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)DrGunillaMartin

Wikipedia is required to report, with due emphasis, what the highest quality WP:reliable sources say about a subject.

With respect to PASyndrome, most of them say more or less what this article says: That there's confusion about what, exactly, counts as PASyndrome (compared to any other sort of alienation between children and parents); and that the proponents' claim that PASyndrome is a materially different psychological process (compared to all the other things that result in alienation between children and parents) is generally rejected.

In short, if you want Wikipedia's article to change, then you need to change reality first. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it deliberately follows expert opinion, instead of trying to promote what editors believe that experts "should" be saying. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article use an overly critical tone, especially in the introduction. It is possible to explain that the notion is controversial with a more neutral tone. Especially the emphasis put on explaining that PAS is not recognised / rejected as a distinct disorder may let the reader think that it is behavioral pattern existence itself that is rejected.

"With respect to PASyndrome, most of them say more or less what this article says:[...] the proponents' claim that PASyndrome is a materially different psychological process (compared to all the other things that result in alienation between children and parents) is generally rejected"

The problem is that it is not what the article is saying. The article tend to say that PAS is generally rejected. It should say that it is rejected as a materially different psychological process (compared to all the other things that result in alienation between children and parents). It is one thing to say that it is not a specific syndrome, it is another to say it is rejected as a syndrome.

Bzhb (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC 2

The following scientific view about the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome is currently included in the Parental Alienation Syndrome article:

PAS has been described as a hypothesis that has not met the burden of proof required to demonstrate that it is true

However, the above statement conflicts with the following scientific view about the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome:

There is agreement that (1) the phenomena exists (2) that the phenomena is a disturbance and (3) that the description of the phenomena is useful and not better described by some other description.

Which of these scientific views more properly reflects the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome?

Thank you for your comments, Michael H 34 (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Your request is still very long, and contains your argument, so is not neutral. Can you shorten the question, and make your argument here on the talkpage instead? How about something like "Which scientific view more properly reflects the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome?", and then putting the rest of your argument here as a posting.--Slp1 (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In summary, and repeating what has been already been noted by multiple editors in the discussion above...

inclusion of material about what "properly reflects the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome" is not an appropriate subject for this article, though it might be for the Syndrome page.[2][3]
Even disregarding this, Warshak is a proponent of having PAS accepted as a syndrome and arguing that case, not an expert in the criteria for the acceptance of syndromes.[4][5] I also have serious questions about the status the journal it is published in, which is self-described as a "small journal", that publishes articles that "please the critics", and has no named editor or editorial board. It is very unclear that his view of what leads to the acceptance of a syndrome is authoritative.
The disputed text '"PAS has been described as a hypothesis that has not met the burden of proof required to demonstrate that it is true " can, and has been shown to be supported by numerous references,[6] and its inclusion supported by multiple editors.[7][8][9] --Slp1 (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Response:

(1) Inclusion of why PAS is not accepted is appropriate for this article.
(2) The neutrally stated RFC asks an expert to resolve a conflict between two conflicting scientific views in the section titled Scientific Status.
(3) In my view, the disputed text sourced by Emery, an opponent of PAS who admits that he is "fighting rhetoric with rhetoric, misleads readers because it misrepresents the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael, why does Emery say he is fighting rhetoric with rhetoric? Emery states explicitly why he is doing this, in the article. His point is a good one; please, to ensure we are working from the same understanding of the source, paraphrase why Emery chose a rhetorical approach. Emery's point also addresses your second bullet. I don't think it'll explicitly address your third bullet, but will certainly have implications for it.

As for your first point, the myriad reason why PAS isn't accepted is enumerated many times in the articles.

Incidentally, if you're expecting the "expert" to resolve the conflict, you're probably going to be disappointed. The person resolving the conflict will doubtless be just another editor. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Emery mislead his readers on a matter of science. The reasons why PAS is not accepted as sourced by Warshak are valid reasons related to the scientific status of PAS. These reasons do not subtract from the other more specific reasons already included in the article. Like the intorduction sentences to a paragraph, Warshak's reasons provide the two general categories for the reasons that follow. Furthermore, the proposed edit sourced by Warshak and Bernet provides readers with additional information about the scientific status of PAS. There is near universal agreement that "such children exist", that some children have these 8 symptoms. This information is not included in the article. As I have pointed out, there is no dispute on this point. Even the very critical Drozd (Drozd2009) supports Warshak's statement. Despite Slp1's prior claims to the contrary, not one source contradicts Warshak or Bernet. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Anyone who comments can be viewed as just another editor. Previously on this talk page in a comment for Jack-a-Roe, you recognized the distinction between acceptance of the phenomena of PAS and the acceptance of the syndrome describing the phenomena. I thanked you for this acknowledgement and then you threatened to have me banned from this article. It may take years, but eventually the Scientific Status section will include reasons why PAS is not accepted, which will be based on the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome, not on Emery's misleading sentence about "proof that it is true." Michael H 34 (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Again, the approach Emery takes in his article is quite germane, and is critical to understanding its use in the article. Could you please summarize why he uses the rhetorical approach? Emery makes a factual claim which informs why he uses a rhetorical approach. Could you please state what that claim is? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Emery states that "2. Scientists use different terms—the null hypothesis and statistical significance —to refer to concepts that hold essentially the same meaning as the legal concepts of burden of proof and beyond a reasonable doubt."

Emery has provided more evidence that he is not using scientific terms. "Burden of proof that it is true" is highly inappropriate in a section labeled scientific status. Either (1) we have enough data and we do accept, (2) we need more data before we will accept or (3) we don't need more data and we do not accept that - the symptoms exist, they're abnormal symptoms, and the description of the symptoms is useful and not better described by a different description. There is however no disagreement that some children exist with these symptoms. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

That's not what I'm asking, could you summarize why Emery uses a rhetorical approach? Your reply above doesn't relate to the reason he uses rhetoric. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Outdent:

The following sentence would be considered scientifically valid: "Proponents of PAS have not gathered enough data about PAS, and mental health professionals cannot be 95% or even 90% confident that PAS is a valid and useful description as compared to the null hypothesis that it is not a valid and useful description." Emery did not state this however, and this is not the sentence that is in the article.

Emery used an unscientific substitute term "burden of proof" to help communicate the general idea of the scientifically valid sentence above. He stated this.

Emery stated that "It is not my burden to disprove the hypothesis, because doing so is an impossible task." He is correct. The null hypothesis is only accepted by default when other hypotheses are not accepted with confidence. (This is why Emery included the sentence about the blue martian.)

However, Emery failed to state that "proving" the hypothesis is also an impossible task scientifically! Hypotheses are rejected, not accepted or accepted based on a chosen confidence level. Hypotheses are not proven! In my view, this is why Emery had to state that he is fighting rhetoric with rhetoric. Perhaps he believed that the testimony of mental health professionals is overly influential on judges, and he wanted to diminish this influence by educating the legal community about a lack of data concerning PAS. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Yes that's more what I was looking for. Specifically, Emery says he must use rhetoric because there is no data to support PAS because there has been minimal research on the topic. It is not a case of conflicting data, it is a case of a lack of evidence to support PAS. Ignoring the epistemological questions, Emery's point is that there were insufficient scientific studies on the subject to warrant its use. Unless he's wrong, that's a rather critical point and including a whole bunch of analysis, opinions and caveats about science would be an inappropriate synthesis and a substantial coatrack. By bringing up these tangential issues, it obscures Emery's primary point - PAS is unsupported by any real evidence. Emery therefore neatly verifies the sentence his papers are attached to - PAS is an unproven hypothesis. Without a source that verifies he is incorrect and there is explicit evidence for PAS, the sentence should stand as a plain statement of fact. To return to your original point, this page is not about "the phenomenon", it's about PAS and I see the above proposal and comparison as a false dilemma. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

An author who is less biased than Emery can be found to state that "more data is needed" to evaluate the syndrome.

Emery mislead his readers into thinking that PAS has to be proven true. Proof is not a scientific term. The article now misleads readers into thinking that PAS has to be proven true.

You and Slp1 have argued that the article is not about the criteria needed for the acceptance of a syndrome, but isn't it true that this is what Emery's statement is about? However, Emery's criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome, "proof that it is true", is unscientific and flat wrong.

WLU, you have just stated that whether or not children exist with the 8 symptoms described by PAS (one of the criteria that professionals would use to evaluate whether or not PAS should be considered a valid syndrome) is not relevant for this article about PAS. That will be the issue for another RFC. The statements of Warshak and Bernet are not contradicted by anyone. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Emery isn't saying "more data is needed", Emery is saying "currently, there is no data to support PAS". He's not claiming anything for truth or falsehood, only that currently there's no reason to believe PAS exists. It may, but right now, no one can really say either way. I don't see a reason to portray Emery as "biased", or any reason to question his work. And again, PAS is a specific scientific hypothesis, based on eight criteria. It's not up to us to describe the "thing" that the eight criteria are trying to get at. It's up to us to portray the current mainstream expert opinion on the hypothesis through verifiable reliable sources. I wasn't trying to say anything about PAS' 8 criteria, the "thing" PAS is trying to describe, or the reality of anything related to PAS. As far as I can tell, this conversation is about the lack of empirical support for PAS - specifically, if Emery is a good justification for the sentence it is currently attatched to. Trying to bring more into it, using Warshak and Bernet to contradict Emery still seems like an egregious synthesis to me. Bernet doesn't mention Emery, Warshak can't since it was published several years before. And I still see your question, "Which of these scientific views more properly reflects the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome?" as a false dilemma, as it implies that only one of two possibilities exists, which further presupposes that all three articles are talking about the same thing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with a statement that there is insufficient data for evaluating PAS and as a result PAS should not be accepted as a syndrome.

It is the phrase "proof that it is true" that is offensive and extremely misleading to readers about a matter of science. There is no false dilemma and Emery is simply wrong about the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome. The current sentence sourced by Emery should not remain in the article. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Emery's sole comment on the "syndromehood" of PAS was to say "calling something a syndrome doesn't make it scientific". He doesn't address any of the criteria of what makes a syndrome a syndrome. See page 10, third bullet. I'm not sure why you're conflating Emery's work with anything related to PAS status as a valid syndrome. Emery's comments are directed at PAS' status as an unproven hypothesis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Burden of proof that it is true" is Emery's misleading criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome using substitute legal language for scientific terms. It must not remain in the article or the article will mislead readers on a matter of science.

There is agreement that more data is needed to evaluate the syndrome. There is no doubt that another source can be found for this valid point, but Emery's statement is unacceptable. Michael H 34 (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Again, Emery doesn't discuss the criteria for acceptance of a syndrome, I don't know why you bring that up again and again. Emery's work is irrelevant to the paper by Bernet that argues for the acceptance of a disorder that is related to but distinct from PAS. Emery's statement that there is no research to back up the hypothesis (what is currently there) is perfectly acceptable unless we can verify he is incorrect about the lack of data. Though Emery refers to both science and legal circles, burden of proof has both scientific and legal meanings (see Burden of proof#Science and other uses), and he's addressing both. At best, the link could be modified to direct to the science section, but since Emery addresses both meanings, a link to the overall page is appropriate. I'd even suggest linking to the legal and scientific subsections of that page in the sentence - "PAS has been described as a hypothesis that has not met the burden of proof required to demonstrate that it is true in the scientific and legal realms." Which is true - it is a hypothesis, there is no evidence for it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Burden of proof" is not the phrase that you added to the article.

(1) "Proof that it is true" is Emery's criteria for the acceptance of PAS according to the source. (2) "Proof that it is true" conflicts with the Warshak source. (3) Emery "admitted" that he is "fighting rhetoric with rhetoric." (4) "Proof that it is true" is an unacceptable criteria for the acceptance of any syndrome including PAS. It misleads readers.

Furthermore, (5) Burden of proof is a legal phrase not a scientific phrase, although it may be used to explain a scientific concept. Emery agrees with me. According to Emery burden of proof is a legal phrase related to the scientific terms null hypothesis and statistical significance. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Emery seems completely in line with this, actually making the point for us so there is no need to synthesize. PAS has not met the burden of proof to be found a valid hypothesis. This has nothing to do with its status as a syndrome or disorder (which are medical, not legal or scientific terms). Accordingly, Bernet and Warshak seem quite irrelevant as they are not discussing PAS' scientific status. Their ability to comment on the reality of what Gardner was trying to describe when he concieved of PAS is irrelevant to the question of whether there is sufficent scientific evidence to meet the burden of proof for a theory to be established as a valid hypothesis. Naturally any honest scholar would attempt to verify if the hypothesis has merit before trying to bring it into the courtroom or the DSM, so they are related. But on this specific point, Emery really seems to stand alone and these two sources appear irrelevant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

WLU: "PAS has not met the burden of proof to be found a valid hypothesis."

That's not what you added to the article.

You added "proof that it is true" in the section about scientific status, which is an unacceptably misleading statement about the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome.

WLU: "Accordingly, Bernet and Warshak seem quite irrelevant as they are not discussing PAS' scientific status."

No doubt, Warshak and Bernet provide relevant information about the scientific status of PAS.

Emery source: [10]
Warshak source: [11] (Conceptualizing PAS on page 2) Michael H 34 (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Regards your first statement, the page currently says exactly that and I'm not advocating for it to be changed, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. Emery is talking about PAS' scientific status, so it seems quite sensible to place his comment in that section; also, "acceptance" is different from "truth" - people "accepted" that homosexuality was a disorder, but that didn't make it "true". Truth is demonstrated through research, but even truth is a dubious choice of word. The sources don't seem to support the idea that PAS has much scientific support, and Bow et al shows that it doesn't even have much acceptance. Warshak's page two still doesn't address Emery's point. The second paragraph in "Conceptualizing PAS" doesn't really help with anything since it's an unsupported assertion. Warshak's literature review is at best suggestive, not demonstrative or proof of the reality of PAS. The rest of the section is essentially a review of theoretical pieces which Warshak views as suggestive or related to PAS. Most of it focuses on the perceived strengths and flaws of the "alienated child" model. What isn't present is a discussion of studies or evidence. Warshak also notes "Both [PAS and the alienated child model by Johnston and Kelly] find support in the literature for some aspects of their formulation, while neither has large-scale empirical research to validate its conceptual superiority" Regards reliability, Warshak again concedes a lack of empirical evidence - "We await empirical research, however, which tests the ability of clinicians to apply these symptoms to case material and agree on whether or not a particular symptom ispresent in a particular child...To date no study has directly measured the extent to which different examiners, with the same data, can agree on the presence or absence of PAS...until such data exist, the reliability of PAS cannot be supported by refernce to scientific literature." Regards validity, Warshak discusses the two stages (clinical description followed by empirical research) and states "The field of PAS study is just beginning to enter the second stage with studies in progress." Warshak cites some studies that could be interpreted to support PAS, but with caveats and few specifically on PAS and states "Systematic empirical research is lacking when it comes to validating the specific cluster of symptoms that characterizes PAS". So, in 2001 when Warshak was published, there was a dearth of empirical research supporting PAS, something which appears to not have changed in the previous eight years. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

WLU: "Regards reliability, Warshak again concedes a lack of empirical evidence - "We await empirical research, however, which tests the ability of clinicians to apply these symptoms to case material and agree on whether or not a particular symptom ispresent in a particular child...To date no study has directly measured the extent to which different examiners, with the same data, can agree on the presence or absence of PAS...until such data exist, the reliability of PAS cannot be supported by refernce to scientific literature."

This is an important point. Why don't you add it to the article?

Note that Warshak states that the reliability of PAS cannot be supported by reference to scientific literature, and he also states that "such children exist [have the symptoms described by proposed syndrome - the phenomena of PAS] is not a point of contention in the social science literature.

The existence of the phenomena [such children exist - have the symptoms described by proposed syndrome] is only one of the criteria needed for a syndrome to be accepted.

WLU "Truth is demonstrated through research, but even truth is a dubious choice of word."

I agree. Please eliminate the misleading statement sourced by Emery.

Michael H 34 (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I've read this, I see nothing worth responding to. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm sorry that I've been silent recently, but I want to record my concern at Michael's admission that he will pursue his editing goals though "It may take years".[12]. This is indeed dedication to his cause, but it is also an admission of his tendentious editing and failure to hear and listen. I'm very, very tired of this discussion. I'm very, very tired at MH34's failure to respond substantively to any of the legitimate objections raised by WLU, myself and others regarding sourcing, undue weight, verifiability etc, as anybody checking the posts here and the archives can see. I'm so tired of it that I've reworked the section in an effort to improve the sourcing of apparently contentious, though extremely well-sourced points, and remove the word "truth", which has caused so many kilobytes of discussion. Is this the result of wearing me down? Yes. Will this tendentious, uncollaborative strategy pay off in the longterm? No.--Slp1 (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

WLU: "Truth is demonstrated through research, but even truth is a dubious choice of word." WLU: I've read this, I see nothing worth responding to.

Please allow me to clear. The article still includes the words "burden of proof that it is true." They should be eliminated. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Although Slp1 stated above that she objects to including information about the criteria for the acceptance of PAS as a syndrome sourced by Warshak based on the idea that this article is not about the criteria for the acceptance of syndromes, she does not object to the misleading statement "burden of proof that it is true" sourced by Emery, even though it is clearly about the criteria for the acceptance of PAS as a syndrome. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

No, the article does not include the words "burden of proof that it is true". Please check your facts.

I have reverted your edit, Michael [13]. You have failed to check the facts here too. The given references are clearly talking about the fact that Gardner et al have offered no scientific proof of the existence of PAS, period, nothing to do with whether or not it qualifies as a syndrome. ce.g. Martindale and Gould "there is little, if any, research establishing the empirical foundation for the existence of PAS"; Hoult "“unsupported speculation rather than scientific knowledge"; Emery "According to the rules of science, Gardner is free to offer his hypothesis about alienating parents. But his hypothesis should not be believed, especially in public forums like the courtroom, until proven true by scientific research....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." Stop introducing unverifiable information into this article.--Slp1 (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to WLU, if you please.

"Proof that it exists" is as objectionable as "proof that it is true."

Hoult is scientific. Martindale and Gould and Emery the misleader are not. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I have reformatted your comments because as I have pointed out before, threading is a bad idea because it makes things unclear.

Whether an edit is "objectionable" to you is completely beside the point as far as WP is concerned. Your personal opinions about whether you think Hoult is "Scientific" and "Martindale and Gould and Emery the misleader are not" (despite the fact that M, G and E are all well qualified psychologists[14] [15]) is also completely beside the point as far as WP is concerned. The question is, are their views verifiable from reliable sources? The answer is yes. Your edit misrepresents their comments, as I have already pointed out, and is continuing evidence of your POV pushing. --Slp1 (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If you please, my response is the same as it has been for the past set of comments - your edits appear to be based on personal taste with no substantiation in either the studies you cite or the others I've read. You are misrepresenting the sources that exist, ignoring the problems with the actual substantive points made by scholars for and against, and quote mine with either wilful oblivion to the true intent or a failure to actually read the sources. Calling something scientific doesn't make it any more or less reliable (particularly since Hoult is a literature review and examination of its legal uses, not a controlled trial or actual scientific test). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "burden of proof that it exists" is unscientific and just as misleading as "burden of proof that it is true." This statement is inconsistent with the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome and yet it is placed without attribution in a section labeled Scientific Status. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

(Notice that some of the scholars consistently use language that is scientifically acceptable and other do not.)Michael H 34 (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Summary so far: Slp1 stated that she is "so tired." ( "Give her a break!", "Let her alone!" "Don't you know she's pooped?!") She was not too tired to call me a point of view pusher not long after she agreed to remove "burden of proof that it is true" from the article as I had requested in this RFC. Unfortunately, she replaced "burden of proof that it is true" with "burden of proof that it exists", which is also unacceptable in the section labeled "Scientific Status." Michael H 34 (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Burden of proof has both scientific and legal meanings. Emery has referred to both. Your opinion is not relevant when it is contradicted multiple times by reliable sources. Your claim that it is not scientific is incorrect and your attempt to link to its acceptance as a syndrome is unrelated. We're both tired because your editing appears to be constantly informed by your own opinion in spite of the way actual sources transparently contradict your points. This takes valuable time away from editing of other pages and is extremely frustrating. tendentious editing is one advantage that POV-pushers have over dedicated contributors. It is easy to belabour a single point or topic until people leave in disgust or frustration. Please consider why Slp1 and I am tired of this and frustrated - we've consistently demonstrated, with reference to numerous sources, why we don't think you have appropriate support for your suggestions, and have recieved nothing substantive back except "Warshak says it's not a point of contention". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Failed...burden of proof...that it exists" does not refer to which criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome does not "exist" and is therefore is misleading. In fact, "Failed...burden of proof... that it exists" is intentionally misleading and contrary to the accepted existence of the phenomena (children with the symptoms). The author, Emery, had to caveat his view in a footnote, and the source is not a scientific journal but a law journal. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

RFC 3

The following is a proposed edit to be integrated into the article on Parental Alienation Syndrome:

PAS is not accepted as a syndrome. That some children chronically and irrationally reject a parent in part as a result of the influence of the other parent is not a point of contention in the social science literature.(Warshak, 2001; Bernet, 2008) PAS, however, is not accepted as a syndrome for many reasons; there is disagreement about whether or not these symptoms are an abnormal disturbance and whether or not PAS is a helpful new diagnostic category.(Warshak, 2001)

Is this an appropriate edit?

This is the quote from Warshak [16]:

"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."

Thank you for your comments, Michael H 34 (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that Warshak has not lost its previous flaws - it's old, much of the criticisms have evolved since then, the point discussed in the second sentence is very much a point of contention in the social science literature, and the many problems with PAS and its acceptance are already well-discussed throughout the article. This is repetitive if integrated without changing the article, and completely inadequate if it stands alone. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Warshak source is supported by the Bernet source, which was published in late 2008. WLU implies that Warshak is contradicted by "evolved criticisms." He is mistaken. The proposed edit does not repeat other criticisms nor does it take anything away from any of the other criticisms. The proposed edit are introductory sentences to a paragraph providing general information about the scientific status of the specific criticisms that follow. Also, the proposed edit includes information that is not otherwise included in the article, and which is not refuted by a single source. The proposed edit states that some children have the symptoms described by PAS. Bernet states that the "phenomena of PAD [parental alienation disorder] is nearly universally accepted by mental health professionals." This means that although PAD/PAS is not accepted as a syndrome, there is agreement that some children have the symptoms. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I've just been looking back on this discussion, and realize that MH34 has been arguing for the inclusion of basically this same paragraph for more than 2 months.[17] There has been no support from anybody for this proposed edit during all this time. And my arguments for why it is inappropriate remain the same as they were back on June 11th.[18], and repeated over and over again subsequently.[19][20][21][22] And that's ignoring WLU and WhatamIdoing's arguments in the same time period. To repeat mine:

Bernet still not does support the statement given, because his PAD version excludes "the influence of the other parent" altogether (see page 257, 262-3). The first sentence also not true based on subsequent research (e.g. Baker 2007, Bow 2009). It cannot be included because it fails verifiability.
the fact that some children become alienated from a parent (ie have at least some of the symptoms) is already mentioned in the article three times already; including it again would be contrary to undue weight.
Warshak's opinion about the process for syndrome acceptance is tangential to this topic at best; and in any case if we are going this direction, the DSM criteria for syndrome and Walker et al's 2004 discussion about its failure to meet the criteria would be more appropriate.[23]. Inclusion is inappropriate per undue weight --Slp1 (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Bernet isn't talking about PAS and there's no evidence that anyone agrees with him (similar to Warhsak eight years in the past). Bernet and Warshak can't argue for anything regarding the scientific status of PAS because there's no science behind it, just a series of case studies (and the plural of anecdotes is not data). Bernet is appropriately mentioned in the section on the DSM and should not be placed in the "scientific status" section for two reasons - one its not about PAS, and second, it's not scientific or a scientific argument; Bernet argues that it should be included because then actual science and studies could be done. Also, having the symptoms doesn't mean having the syndrome. Weight loss is a symptom of AIDS, that doesn't mean someone who loses weight through exercise and diet has AIDS. It's a conflation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WLU: "Bernet isn't talking about PAS"

According to Bernet, PAD is based on the same 8 symptoms as PAS. Bernet did not change the name except to change the word syndrome to disorder (syndromes can be changed to disorders). Bernet added a time requirement for the symptoms and a requirement that the symptoms be sufficiently disturbing. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Nope, you're wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The comment that "Bernet did not change the name except to change the word syndrome to disorder" just indicates that MH34 simply has not read anything more than the Bernet abstract. The article itself is very clear about how Bernet defines PAD; his definition does not include any influence from the other parent, making it very, very different from Gardner's PAS. Once again, I have pointed this out numerous times in previous months.--Slp1 (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the subtler but still important adaptation of items from PAS which render the two unequal, as well as the still-present problems of an substantial lack of support for PAS that preceded PAD, the lack of research for both, the lack of acceptance for both, and general rejection of PAS (PAD being too preliminary to have been rejected). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that edit would give undue weight to Warshack, 2001. Reading the archives is a bit of a trip, but the arguments are all there. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(Syndromes and disorders: A syndrome can have its name changed to a disorder. Although PAD includes a refinement to PAS based on two of the criticisms of PAS, PAS and PAD are based on the same 8 symptoms.) Michael H 34 (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Misleading

Regards this edit, what is really misleading is suggesting that Hoult and Emery are in any way talking about PAS' status as a syndrome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

The difference being, as with most of these issues, I can support my claim with reference to sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In my view, it's exactly the opposite. In my view, the problem is that you see what you want to see and disregard the rest. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I'm with WLU. As I pointed out above, MH34 is simply misrepresenting the sources given.--Slp1 (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Existence alone is a misleading and ambiguous term. What is it that does not exist? Michael H 34 (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Michel H 34

Personal experience

This entire article is horribly misleading and does a disservice to the children suffering from this kind of parental behavior. First, the phenomenon is not entirely accessible scientifically and it is therefore a moot point to try to "prove" whether or not it exists. That can't be achieved any more than one can predict the future opinion of a child. And it has nothing to do with sexism. As a single father who's son suffered at the hands of a woman with formally diagnosed narcissistic, histrionic and OCD disorders (Axis II) I can tell you in no uncertain terms that PAS exists and it has less to do with "belittling" as it does with simply denying the child access to one parent. That's all it takes. It doesn't take a five million dollar study to understand that a parent who isn't allowed to see their child for 2 years will experience alienation, both from the parents perspective and from the child's. It is asinine and obnoxious to ignore and marginalize this fact.

Those of you who doubt it, let me bust into your home, take your 1 year old child and hold him in an undisclosed location for 2 years - oh, and throw in 3 mental disorders and physical child beatings in my history - and you tell me if you're feeling a little alienated. It's common sense. And yes, my wife claimed I was abusive to justify her actions. Turns out, a 1 year psychological evaluation of both of us, one of the most extensive in my state's history, finally determined that I was perfectly normal and mentally healthy, that I had never abused a child, that my wife was a child abuser (physical and emotional) - having severely beat her daughter several times - all the while holding full custody of my son. I cannot believe that the editors of this rag are allowing that article to stand as it is. It is nothing but thorough deception and disinformation. Try talking to the people who've experienced it and then form an opinion. And yes, the judge finally agreed and gave me total custody from that lunatic. Now we are suing her for the damages caused by her madness.

As far as sexism goes, this experience has increased my appreciation and fondness of women precisely because it gave me perspective: I've never met and likely will never again meet a woman as sick as my wife. So, most women are pretty cool. It has also helped me understand why women have such a hard time leaving abusive spouses when children are involved. Besides, I'm a feminist so the articles allusion to sexism is dung. And finally, allowing this garbage to stand without a counter-view only serves to embolden people like my wife to act in the way she has. It directly contributes to child abuse and its sick.

Jtkm (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that your life has been so difficult, and I agree that this article could use some work. Of course, Wikipedia doesn't write from our own experiences, and this page is not a good choice for chatting about personal experiences, so our personal beliefs about our own situations are not important.

You seem to have confused "being disconnected (alienated) from one parent" with "having a specific psychosocial syndrome that uniquely involves being disconnected from one parent through the action of the other parent". The first certainly happens, is the obvious, expected, and unfortunately normal result of a young child never seeing an absent parent or hearing anything positive about him (just ask any military family what the first few weeks back home after a really long deployment can be like), and is remarkably difficult, confusing, and painful. The second -- well, nobody's quite sure. It may well be that the processes involved are the same as another other process of alienation, in which case PAS doesn't exist (but alienation does). On the other hand, it's (just) possible that it really is a different thing, in which case PAS does exist -- meaninig that PAS is significantly different from garden-variety alienation. In this scenario, you would have some children with "normal alienation" against a parent, and others with "syndromic alienation" against a parent. In particular, it would be possible for this child to experience very severe "normal alienation", and for that child to experience very mild "syndromic alienation," because the proponents' argument is that these are different things, not merely different degrees of severity.

To give an analogy that may be helpful: According to many psychologists, loss is loss, and if you lost a puppy as a child (and have appropriate training), then you have enough experience with grief to empathize with people who have lost a child, a parent, a spouse, or a house, even if your entire life has been 'perfect' since then. Not everyone agrees: some people think that a person that has not experienced the loss of (for example) a child could not possibly empathize, because they believe that the loss of a child is a unique, fundamentally different loss that is inaccessible to those that haven't experienced it personally. People who believe this think that "grief" is what you experience when your elderly parent dies, and that (something else: we'll call it "child loss syndrome"), a completely separate, different thing, is what you experience when you lose a child. Most experts think that the idea of 'child loss syndrome' is nonsense -- which does not mean that the experts think these people have not suffered severely, but that they believe that coping with the loss of a child is essentially the same process as any other grief.

PAS appears to be in this state: Most experts are lumping it in with all the other similar problems. They believe that, deep down, being alienated against a parent is no different from being alienated against school, or against a spouse, or against a religious group. A few people believe that it is really a separate and unique thing, but they are a tiny minority. At this point, nobody much knows whether the "lumpers" or "splitters" will ultimately 'win' this debate, but at this moment, the lumpers are prevailing, which means that all the families labeled as having "syndromic alienation" actually have plain old "normal alienation" (and therefore PAS does not exist, in the sense that it is not a separate, unique thing, but simply a misleading label for typical forms of alienation). This article must reflect the current state of expert opinion, even if they do not reflect your personal beliefs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Existence: WhatamIdoing seems to be trying to justify the misleading statement concerning the existence of the syndrome. Does "that it exists" refer to the symptoms of the children or that these symptoms are sufficiently disturbing for children, or that the symptoms are better explained by some other explanation? In my view, the article is intentionally misleading. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I suggest you all to read DUFRESNE, Martin; PALMA, Hélène. "Autorité parentale conjointe: le retour de la loi du père". Nouvelles Quéstions Féministes, Lausanne: Éditions Antipodes, v. 21, n. 2., p. p. 31-54, 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.254.54 (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

@jtkm my mother did a light version of this on me. she is crazy (though not violent) and in her defense i should point out that the whole thing took place some 25 years ago, when man-hating feminism was kind of the social norm. she lived in a society that told her that it's selfish for a divorced father to try to keep in touch with his children. when it was considered normal for mothers to get alimony but not give visiting-rights (even if there were absolutely no accusations of child-abuse against the father). anyway, my point is that children always try to please their parents. it most certainly doesn't take outright emotional abuse to make a child tell its parent what she wants to hear (some subconscious coercion is more than enough): that the 2 of you are ok, that you totally do not mis having a father-figure. that your father (which you only know through her stories) is a jerk.

i have some other relatives that i haven't seen much. but that just means i don't have any positive or negative feeling towards them. it's a completely different thing to simply not see someone versus being primed to actively dislike someone.

i also know the phenomenon from a different angle: this is a very common thing to happen with children that are taken from their family and put in foster-care. since they are unsure of the love of their new 'mother' (compared to the unconditional love they got back home) they are very eager to please, eager to tell the adults what they want to hear: that everything is fine in the foster-home, that they are far more happy now then they were with their birth-parents. they will then push away their birth-parents as a way of resolving their conflict of loyalty.

and to be honest i have the sneaky suspicion that this is an important reason the syndrome isn't officially recognized. because if it were an official thing (and taken beyond just father/mother-divorce conflict) then child-workers could no longer justify their take-children-from-parents actions by simply insisting 'the child told me he likes his foster-parents'. then the mere fact that a child claims to very much dislike his birth-parents SHOULD immediately raise suspicion about emotional pressure from the foster-parents. (and in cases like yours they can no longer hide their incompetence behind: well, *I* am all for father-rights. but your child doesn't want to see you at this moment, so don't be a dick by forcing yourself into his life. give him some time and he'll come around) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selena1981 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Discredited"

This news story might be an interesting source for this article. It indicates that courts are likely, officially or unofficially, to accept the PAS claim that allegations are false and instigated by an "alienator" parent, even though most are (apparently) not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes - analysis

[[24]] Michael H 34 (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

"However, some opponents of recognizing Parental Alienation are on the lunatic fringe, denying that Parental Alienation exists at all...." Michael H 34 (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Glenn Sacks blog will never be a reliable source for a page about an allegedly scholarly subject. There's lots of sources, a self-published blog will never be acceptable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

not working link

^ "APA Statement on Parental Alienation Syndrome". Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 1996. http://www.apa.org/releases/passyndrome.html. Retrieved 2009-03-31. --Joep Zander (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I fixed it.--Slp1 (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sunnyflowers, 5 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add the following quote (in the quotation marks) from the citation below to your article titled Parental Alienation Syndrome - In Courts - Canada to be inserted after the last line in this section that reads - There is recognition that rejection of a parent is a complex issue, and that a distinction must be made between pathological alienation and reasonable estrangement.[24]

The quote to be added is: “Although it has not been recognized in every state or in every case, PAS has been recognized in decisions in at least 22 states of the United States and eight Canadian provinces, as well as in Australia, Germany, Great Britain, Israel, and Switzerland (Gardner, 2006).

Footnote #17, pg. 217 from “Challenging Issues in Child Custody Disputes: A guide for legal and mental health professionals” by Barbara Jo Fidler, Nicholas Bala, Rachel Birnbaum, Katherine Kavassalis copyright 2008 Thomson Canada Limited

Sunnyflowers (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sunnyflowers and thanks for the detail and citations in your edit request. I'm afraid I don't agree that this would be an improvement to the article, however. Firstly, it is not clear why claims about the US, Australia, etc, is appropriate in section about Canada. Secondly, and more importantly, it appears that Gardner regularly overstated his case in terms of the legal acceptance of the syndrome he described. Information about his claims are already noted (and contradicted) in the article in the US section, and Bala, Fidler et al.'s 2007 article in the Queen's Law Journal also specifically states that Gardner's opinion was not accepted in the one Canadian case where he was permitted to testify, and that "in recent years" Canadian court decisions about "alienation" have avoided using PAS terminology. This is an article about PAS, and thus your proposed edit would seem to give undue weight to controversial claims by the syndrome's "discoverer". --Slp1 (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust something sourced to Gardner alone when it's a topic and comment like this - his representation of his own work has been questioned in at least one reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Procedural: per above; up for discussion/consensus; I removed the {{editsemiprotected}} for now. Chzz ► 02:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)<.small>

Pedophillia project

Someone, probably trying to cast aspersions as to the scientific validity of PAS, tagged this article as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch. PAS has nothing to do with Pedophilia and it's never mentioned in the article. The only reference I can find to Pedophilia on the talk pages is on Archive page 1 where Richard A. Gardner was accused of promoting Pedophilia and the consensus there was that it was inappropriate. The project itself appears defunct with no active members and no activity for 2 years, though it appears it was created to prevent the promotion of pedophilia on Wikipedia (a noble enough cause, to be sure). PAS is a scientific theory considered for inclusion in the upcoming DSM V. Though it will not be included it has been set aside for additional study. It's certainly fair to argue about it's scientific validity but it's sheer hyperbole to pretend it's an article or topic that promotes, or is even related to, pedophilia. I removed the tag without discussion here and an appropriate edit summary thinking that would be completely non-controversial but someone reverted my edit (hence my comments.) A quick look at the other topics listed in the project shows that this article does not belong with them. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PAW&limit=500 (frankly I feel dirty writing that word so many times and think even this comment is marring the talk page. I'd like to be able to discuss PAS w/o a big Pedophilia Watch tag looming over my comments and tarring the whole discussion.) I have removed the tag again and hope that it won't be re-added again with a justification like "it was there before ergo it belongs there" which is circular nonsense. --Cybermud (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Any WikiProject is permitted to tag any article whatsoever. If User:Jack-A-Roe (the WikiProject member who tagged this page in 2008) says that this article is within their scope, then it is within their scope, full stop. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging is perfectly clear on that point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I read through the page you referenced, but maybe I'm having a bad reading nite.. Where does it say or imply the specific claim your making? (A quote here would be helpful.) If that is really the policy, user User:Jack-A-Roe is really a member of the project and really still thinks this article is a valid part of it I apologize. Though my edit still remains in good faith and very much in line with common sense which dictates that the most likely explanation was a vitriolic tagging by someone opposed to the scientific validity (not to imply it exists one way or another) of PAS, of which there are many, or a good faith editor believing the unfounded claim that such was the case. You may want to AGF as well if you are not a Pedophilia Project member and try using a little more common sense--Cybermud (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I will contact User:Jack-A-Roe and ask him about the tag.--Cybermud (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide a direct quotation from the guideline:

A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner.

I expect that will be sufficiently clear. (But, yes, go ask Jack: project scopes sometimes change.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad reading nite it is :) You are correct, that is very clear. I looked at Jack-A-Roe's contributions and he is, in fact, a very active member of the project, I left a message for him asking him to re-evaluate the article but have re-added the tag pending him doing so.--Cybermud (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. As Cybermud mentioned on my talk page, this article has changed a lot since 2008, for the better I might add. Also, the PAW project is mostly inactive now, because the problems it was formed to address have been solved in other ways. But I want to make it clear that the tag was never used as suggested above to "cast aspersions". It was used because at that time there was some issue with the article that required monitoring. I don't recall what the issue was, and I see no need to try and figure it out after so much time has passed. I do appreciate that you went out of your way to ask me to review the situation rather than just removing the tag. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Marioneta, 5 Sep 2010

In section "4 In courts", I want add spain situation: (Sorry for my less-than-correct english... I beg you take the data and correct the grammar :( )

A Congres's report in En España, in 10 november 2009 advise: "Do no accept the so-called Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and don't apply its terapy in the justice court, publics organizations or Meeting points" (La no aceptación del llamado Síndrome de Alienación Parental (SAP) ni la aplicación de su terapia, por parte de los tribunales de justicia, de los organismos públicos ni de los puntos de encuentro) http://www.congreso.es/public_oficiales/L9/CONG/BOCG/D/D_296.PDF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioneta (talk • contribs) 11:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Absence from the DSM

The syndrome will be included in the next coming edition of the DSM as was published today -but I can't find the source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.157.194 (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the question of inclusion into DSM was effectively discussed. But this press article says that the chance for inclusion are slim. [25] Bzhb (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Academic controversy on Parental alienation syndrome (PAS) and Wikipedia NPOV

Also this same Associated Press article [26] says that PAS is a very controversial issue among psychatrist specialists:

"We're gotten an enormous amount of mail — more than any other issue," said Dr. Darrel Regier, vice chair of the task force drafting the manual. "The passions on both sides of this are exceptional."

The wikipedia policy on controversial subject is to adopt a neutral point of view WP:NPOV, and specifically when there is several viewpoint on a subject, each viewpoint must get a due weight WP:DUE. Especially in the case of alleged pseudo-science WP:FRINGE/PS :

"2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Some things require a bit more care:

3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point."

After rapid overview of the references and a few research on the net, I believe the notion of PAS fits into the Questionable Science since there is a reasonable amount of academic debate on the subject. Nontheless, contrary to psychoanalysis example , the majority view point here is that is not a formal health syndrom. But it is also not a reason to completely dismiss the minority view point on the subject : There is an ongoing academic debate on the subject and there is minority point of view among psychatric experts that this syndrom is a formal health syndrom.

This policy is also relevant here : "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."WP:ASF.

Also, there is two different kind of opposition to the PAS concept:

- those who think there is no such thing as PAS.

- those who think that situation such as discribed by PAS exists but does not deserve to be consider a health disorder in itself.

The article could make it clearer.

So I believe this article needs a serious reorganisation to meet Wikipedia neutrality policies. My proposed guidelines would be :

Clearly state that PAS is a controversial subject among psycatric expert, that it is supported only by a minority of the experts but that the dispute can not be considered settled.
Explain why it is controversial : the use of this notion into high conflict divorce trial, especially in the case where there is child abuse accusation.
Explain who are the people in each side of the controversy and neutraly state what their view on the notion is :

-- "On one side of the debate, which has raged since the 1980s, are feminists, advocates for battered women and others who consider "parental alienation syndrome" to be an unproven and potentially dangerous concept useful to men trying to deflect attention from their abusive behavior."

-- "On the other side are legions of firm believers in the existence of a syndrome, including hundreds gathering for a conference on the topic this weekend in New York. They say that recognition of parental alienation in the psychiatrists' manual would lead to fairer outcomes in family courts and enable more children of divorce to get treatment so they could reconcile with an estranged parent."

Make clearer that the rejection of PAS as a specific health disorder does not necessary imply rejection of the existence of the behavioral pattern.
Elevate the debate by highlighting the role of this controverse in a context of gender roles change in modern western society and gender revendication : Fathers' rights movement, Feminism,Patriarchy,Domestic_violence

Bzhb (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

pro-pedophillia accusations

Okay I think I finally understand why PAS is controversial and why some editors insists on the rejection of the concept : there is people that believe that the inventor of PAS, Richard Gardner was pedophile or pro-pedophillia. They also believe that the whole PAS concept was purposedely invented to defend pedophiles. The accusation you can find on the internet are quite violent :

http://www.cincinnatipas.com/richardgardner-pas.html

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/2.html

(fr)http://sisyphe.org/spip.php?article2790

The critics attacks Gardner ligitimacy as a professor, having "atypical views on pedophillia" (in the sense of more acceptance of pedophilla than typical), being himself a pedophile, being a pervert, being responsible for 16 years old girl's suicide ...

It is worth noting that Gardner denied those claim : http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/misperce.htm

I don't have enough knowledge of the man and his work to decide whether those claims are legitimate or not. Bzhb (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Curious99US, 24 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Brazil outlaws parental alienation

On 26/August/2010 Brazil became the first country to legislate against parental alienation. Brazil outlaws parental alienation

Article 3 Practicing acts of parental alienation violates basic fundamental rights of the child or adolescent to have healthy family interaction and family life, prevents affect and emotion from happening in relationships with the parent and the family group. It is moral abuse against the child or adolescent and breach of the duties that are inherent to parental authority or that stem from guardianship or custody. Brazilian Parental Alienation Law (English translation) Curious99US (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Two problems: you actually want parental alienation, which is different from parental alienation syndrome. Second, you'll need a reliable source, as blogs are generally not reliable by Wikipedia standards. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that PAS is specifically about mothers and children who report domestic violence. It is used in cases where the violence has been found by the court based on clear and convincing evidence. There is historic context to PAS that should be added in a history section. PAS is a repackaging of a sterotype of women that dates back centuries in the law. It represents "primarily mothers," as stated by Gardner in his publications, as shrewish and needing to be controled by "chastizement." In his publication, Gardner requires the courts to jail the mother and the child if they continue to report acts of domestic violence. His "cure" is verbatim the standard of the law that existed prior to the civil rights act and still exists as a practice in most states. PAS attempts to legitimize the stereotype and the practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.235.98.42 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Does not read objectively at all, more like a lobbied sales pitch

This article does not appear to resemble the objective approach attempted by Wikipedia. Even on controversial ideas in Wikipedia, there is generally the approach that each facet of the given idea will be presented on its own merits.

This is not the case with the PAS Wiki article as nearly each section of the article is given to side comments, framed statements, or even the selections of information given. The article, in it's entirety, reads like a subjective conclusion against the topic itself, much of which invokes the logical fallacy "appeal to popularity." Including the status is fine, but that could have been easily accomplished in a single short paragraph.

Regardless of whether it's included in the DSM-IV, upcoming DSM-V, has a majority or minority role in courts, scientific discussions, etc., this is still peer-reviewed and published work, yet it's treated in this Wiki article as if it was a report on hunting as-written by the NRA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spritom (talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The majority of the sources are critical, therefore the neutral approach is to present mostly those criticisms. "Neutral" does not mean "from the viewpoint of proponents" or "in a favourable light". Neutral means "in proportion to the relevant literature" which is, as I said, mostly critical. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 06:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Rewritting the article to implement NPOV and improve the description of the controversy on the subject

It has been eight month since when I commented the article in this talk page (see above), explaining why this article fails to meet the wikipedia NPOV policy. Since my comments received no objection (on the contrary Spritom agreed the article is not objective) and the artice remains largely unchanged I will now take the step to modify it. Bzhb (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted a while back. Neutrality is established through references to reliable sources, not editor opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 06:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 November 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi. Your definition of Parental Alienation Syndrome is correct. However, I think that you should talk about the "indoctrination" you speak of which causes it. Can you please provide a link to Wikipedia "Parental Alienation." To be clear, Parental Alienation is what the alienating parent does to cause Parental Alienation Syndrome in the child. Parental Alienation IS NOT what happens to the child. The SYNDROME is what happens to the child. For example: a mother who has residential custody of a child may engage in Parental Alienation. She becomes the ALIENATING parent. The father becomes the ALIENATED parent. The child gets Parental Alienation Syndrome as a result.

Inadequate sources and too instructional

Please see the following source:

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)

Lawyers.com - http://translate.google.es/translate?hl=es&sl=en&u=http://family-law.lawyers.com/visitation-rights/Parental-Alienation-Syndrome.html&ei=7XrHToSKKonc0QGAw6Aa&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CGMQ7gEwBQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dparental%2Balienation%2Bsyndrome%26hl%3Des%26rlz%3D1R2ADRA_enUS452%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D571%26prmd%3Dimvns

As a divorced parent, you worry when the other parent makes derogatory remarks and tries to give your child a negative image of you. But, when do mere derogatory remarks turn into a harmful psychological phenomenon that psychologists have labeled the "Parental Alienation Syndrome?"

Parental Alienation Syndrome occurs when one parent's efforts to consciously (or unconsciously) brainwash a child combine with the child's own bad-mouthing of the other parent. In severe cases, the child will not want to see or talk to the alienated parent.

Once the alienation reaches such a point, it is difficult to reverse, and permanent damage is done to the child and to the relationship between the child and the alienated parent.

Warning Signs of Parental Alienation (PA)

How can you tell if your ex is attempting to alienate your child?

Here are some Parental Alienation techniques and warning symptoms that psychologists have observed in children suffering from Parental Alienation Syndrome, according to Dr. Douglas Darnall, Ph.D:

• Giving a child a choice as to whether or not to visit with the other parent. • Telling the child details about the marital relationship or reasons for the divorce. • Refusing to acknowledge that the child has property and may want to transport possessions between residences. • Resisting or refusing to cooperate by not allowing the other parent access to school or medical records and schedules of extracurricular activities. • One parent blaming the other parent for financial problems, breaking up the family, changes in lifestyle, or having a girlfriend or boyfriend. • Refusing to be flexible with the visitation schedule in order to respond to the child's needs, or scheduling the child in so many activities that the other parent is never given the time to visit. • Assuming that if a parent has been physically abusive with the other parent, it follows that the parent will assault the child. This assumption is not always true. • Asking the child to choose one parent over the other. • The alienating parent encouraging any natural anger the child has toward the other parent. • A parent or step-parent suggesting changing the child's name or having the step-parent adopt the child. • When the child cannot give reasons for being angry towards a parent or gives reasons that are vague and without any details. • Using a child to spy or covertly gather information for the parent's own use. • Arranging temptations that interfere with the other parent's visitation. • Reacting with hurt or sadness to a child having a good time with the other parent. • Asking the child about the other parent's personal life. • Physically or psychologically rescuing a child when there is no threat to their safety. • Making demands on the other parent that are contrary to court orders. • Listening in on the child's phone conversation with the other parent.

What Causes Parental Alienation?

What causes a parent to want to damage the relationship of his or her own child with the other parent at his or her own child's expense?

Intentions differ from one parent to the next, but psychologists have suggested the following as potential motivators:

• An alienating parent may have unresolved anger toward the other parent for perceived wrongs during the relationship and may be unable to separate those issues from parenting issues. • An alienating parent may have unresolved issues from his or her childhood, particularly in how he or she related to his or her own parents, which he or she projects onto the other parent (whether or not it is factually accurate). • An alienating parent may have a personality disorder, such as narcissism or paranoia, which makes him or her unable to empathize with the child's feelings or see the way his or her behavior is harming the child. Such personality disorders may also make the alienating parent more likely to be jealous of the other parent's adjustment to the breakup and cause the alienating parent to have extreme rage toward the other parent. • An alienating parent may be so insecure as to his or her own parenting skills that he or she projects those concerns onto the other parent, regardless of reality. • An alienating parent may be so wrapped up in his or her child's life that he or she has no separate identity and sees the child's relationship with the other parent as a threat. • Sometimes new spouses or grandparents push the alienating parent into inappropriate behavior for their own inappropriate reasons, and the alienating parent is not strong enough to resist them.

What causes a child to buy into the alienating parent's brainwashing?

The child may:

• Feel the need to protect a parent who is depressed, panicky or needy, • Want to avoid the anger or rejection of a dominant parent, who is also often the parent with residential custody, • Want to hold onto the parent that the child is most afraid of losing, such as a parent who is self-absorbed or may not be very involved with the child.

In choosing to go along with the viewpoint of the alienating parent, the child can avoid conflict and remove him or herself from the constant tug-of-war.

How Does Alienation Occur?

The alienating parent may use a number of techniques, including but not limited to:

• Encouraging the child to pretend that the other parent does not exist. This can range from not allowing the child to mention the other parent's name to refusing to acknowledge that the child has fun with the other parent. • Leading the child to believe it is his or her choice as to whether or not to spend time with the other parent. • Attacking the other parent's character or lifestyle, such as job, lack of job, disability, living arrangements, planned activities with the child, clothing and friends (particularly new romantic partners). • Putting the child in the middle, by encouraging the child to spy on the other parent or take messages back and forth. • Emphasizing the other parent's flaws, such as an occasional burst of temper or not being prepared for the child's activities. Normal parental lapses are blown out of proportion and the child is repeatedly reminded of them. • Discussing any court battles between the parents with the child and encouraging the child to take sides. • Making the child think that there is reason to be afraid of the other parent. • Lying about how the other parent treats the child. If this is done frequently enough, the child may begin to believe even preposterous suggestions. • Rewriting history, such as suggesting to the child that the other parent never cared for him or her, even as an infant. The child has no memory of prior events and so cannot determine whether the alienating parent is telling the truth or not.

What Does An Alienated Child Look Like?

A child who has been successfully alienated:

• Disparages the alienated parent with inaccurate, distorted descriptions or even uses foul language. • Offers only weak or frivolous reasons for his or her anger toward the alienated parent. • Professes to have only hatred toward the alienated parent, and cannot say anything positive about him or her. • Insists that he or she is solely responsible for his or her attitude toward the alienated parent, and that the alienating parent had nothing to do with his or her attitude. • Supports and feels protective toward the alienating parent. • Does not show any empathy or guilt regarding hurting the alienated parent's feelings. • Does not want anything to do with the alienated parent's friends and/or family. • May not want to see or talk to the alienated parent.

What should you do if you fear the other parent is trying to alienate your child?

If you are a parent who is a victim of the Parental Alienation Syndrome, it may have struck without warning and you are wracking your brain trying to figure out what happened. Many alienated parents find it difficult to control their anger and feel hurt over being treated so poorly by their child and ex-spouse.

Experts on alienation suggest the following as ways to cope with the problem:

• Try to control your anger and stay calm and in control of your own behavior. • Keep a log of events as they happen, describing in detail what happened and when. • Always call or pick up your child at scheduled times, even when you know the child will not be available. This is likely to be painful, but you must be able to document to the court that you tried to see your child and were refused. • During time spent with your child, focus on positive activities, and reminisce with the child about previous good times you had together. • Never discuss the court case with your child. • Try not to argue with or be defensive with your child. Focus on talking openly about what your child is actually seeing and feeling, as opposed to what the child has been told to be the truth. • Work on improving your parenting skills by taking parenting courses, reading parenting books, etc., so that you can be the best possible parent to your child. • If possible, get counseling for your child, preferably with a therapist trained to recognize and treat Parental Alienation Syndrome. If it is not possible to get your child into counseling, go to counseling yourself to learn how to react to and counteract the problem. • Do not do anything to violate any court orders or otherwise be an undesirable parent. Pay your child support on time and fulfill all your parenting obligations to the letter. • Do not react to the alienating behavior by engaging in alienating behavior toward your ex. This just makes things worse and further harms the child. • If you are not getting court-ordered time with your child, go back to court and ask that the parent violating the court order be held in contempt of court. The sooner the court knows about the violation of the court order, the more likely it is that the problem can be stopped before it becomes permanent and irreversible. If your custody order is not specific as to exact times and dates you are to be with the child, ask the court to make the order very specific so that there can be no doubt what is required. • Your child did not create the situation and desperately needs your love and affection.

Questions for Your Attorney

• Is it okay to say negative comments about the other parent in front of my child? • What if my child says negative comments about the other parent? Should I try to stop him or her? • How can I stop the other parent from saying negative comments about me?

I hope this is useful to you.

Also, can you please try to clearly make the distinction between the ALIENATING parent and the ALIENATED parent? The ALIENATED parent is the targeted parent.

Finally, can you please emphasize that Parental Alienation Syndrome is called PAS and Parental Alienation is called PA. Can you please try to clearly make the distinction between the PA and PAS?... especially how that a parent uses PA to cause PAS in his or her child. PA causes PAS, PAS does NOT cause PA.

Thank you.

R kutney (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Same response as talk:parental alienation - PA and PAS are dubious, not well accepted, and the sources disagree. Not a good edit to make based on what is provided, and reads far too much like a "how to sue your ex" laundry list. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 06:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop attributing the opinions

When the criticisms of something like PAS are so one-sided, there is no need to attribute the opinions to individual researchers. Per WP:UNDUE, generally this is done when there are only a minority who accept something. Since we are describing the majority opinion, it is not necessary to keep naming the individuals who are the authors of the article. It is clunky wording and makes them appear to be isolated opinions rather than the status of PAS within the scholarly community. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

History shows examples when some theories received ostracism from the community. I do not have expertise to monitor the "status" of theories within the scholarly community. Even if someone has such expertise, attributing their opinion does not hurt.

Re: undue weight, I see inline references to works stating lack of acceptance of this theory in this article.

Re: stop attributing, I see a Wikipedia convention to present only uncontested views without inline attribution as a simple formulation.

-- ilgiz (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Ilgiz, attributing information can and does hurt at times, because it can be misused in order to diminish a particular view. Take, for example, "The earth travels around the sun according to Galileo" or "Scientists have argued that the earth is round". If you don't have the time to research the topic of this article, then it might be best to leave the article to those who have, which includes User:WLU. High quality sources which are summarizing buckets of research consistently make the same points about lack of acceptance. Please stop reverting to your preferred version. --Slp1 (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well shit, this is going to hurt more than my pride. Though I think PAS is heartily rejected by the vast majority of psychologists and psychiatrists, not to mention legal scholars, it is not as universal as the acceptance of the shape of the earth. I think the current wording is clunky and pretty awful, the attribution leads to long sentences filled with unlinked names that do not help the reader tease out whether the opinions are meaningful or not. "Robert Galatzer-Levy, Louis Kraus, Jeanne Galatzer-Levy cited Olesen & Drozd..." is particularly bad - if Galatzer-Levy**2 and Kraus are citing a book to agree and not criticize it, they obviously believe it applies in an unqualified manner. I don't think the summaries do the actual texts and their criticisms justice. The AMA, APA and other APA all fail to recognize it and it wasn't included in the draft DSM-V. All of the subsections of "Reception" go into detail regarding why PAS is not accepted. I have reverted my latest edit as a show of good faith, but after reviewing the sections I don't think it's necessary to front-load a lot of detail (yet insufficient detail of the actual criticisms) into the reception's lead given the amount of text below. It is repetitive and unnecessary given the text below, which I believe adequately demonstrates the lack of acceptance and reasons why. I would suggest adding the word "most" to the line "PAS has not been accepted by experts in psychology, child advocacy or the study of child abuse[5] or legal scholars.[6]" and that the next sentence ("PAS has been extensively criticized by members of the legal and mental health community, who state that PAS should not be admissible in child custody hearings based on both science and law.") is a reasonable summary given the subsections below. I do think that some of the specific criticisms noted should be moved into the appropriate sections, but overall I think the page should be returned to it's original state where there is an overall summary and the details are discussed below. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)