Talk:Richard A. Gardner

Focus on the man

PAS is divisive, but it has its own page. This page to describe what Garder did that is of historical interest.

I think it's of historical interest that his theories were never subjected to empirical study, research, or testing, never recognised by the AMA and the APA, and never published in peer reviewed medical or scientific journals.

I think it's of historical interest that he considered pedophilia to be a "a widespread and accepted practice", that sex with children could be "tender, loving, and non-painful" and that children "may initiate sexual encounters by 'seducing' the adult".

I think it's of historical interest that Gardner advised therapists treating a father who raped his child that he "had a certain amount of bad luck with regard to the place and time he was born with regard to social attitudes toward pedophilia".

I think it's of historical interest that Gardner was an unpaid volunteer at Columbia who had not had hospital admitting privileges for 25 years prior to his death, although he consistently misrepresented himself as a practicing psychiatrist and full professor.

I think it's of significance that this article fails to report objectively on Gardner's life and his pro-paedophile stance, although, in camouflaging the most disturbing aspects of Gardner's work, this article is certainly congruent with the general trend in Wikipedia regarding child abuse and paedophilia. --Biaothanatoi 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is considerable vitriolic attacks on Gardner for raising the issue of false accusation about child abuse, and that encouraging a child to make a false accusation is a form of child abuse. There appears to be a small industry trying to malign his ideas by maligning him. Not only did he publish a rebuttal before he died , but noteworthy scholars such as Bruce Sales have cast serious doubt upon the workings of the family courts in the United States and elsewhere. Furthermore, scandals in New York City and San Diego have blown open a small window into the world of custody evaluation and revealed what may be a massive corruption scam.

He was never "pro-paedophile" but dared to raise the question that "pedophilia" may be mis-applied when convenient, and that more strigent use of diagnostic criteria were essential.

This is a link to his own rebuttal from 1999:

http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/misperce.htm

Shrinkie89 19:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Gardner was well-connected with the pro-incest movements of the 1980s, and he stated several times that the sexual assault of children and women could be pleasureable and beneficial to the victim. His work has become the cause celebre of numerous "father's rights" groups in their campaign to maintain control over children in custody disputes, particularly where the father has been accused of sexual abuse.

The association between Gardner, the pro-incest lobby of the 80s, and fringe activist groups should give editors here cause for concern, particularly since this article has clearly been written by someone sympathetic to Gardner's theories. It is very difficult tto get balanced commentary on child abuse into Wikipedia since some active editors appear to have a conflict of interest. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Biaothanatoi, it's hoped that you wouldn't be the one writing this article with your obvious bias. Is it a problem to you that someone might put forth a theory that in custody pursuits one parent might attempt to manipulate a child into hating the other parent in order to gain custody? Just how angelic do you think humans are? Also, your opinions of father's rights (no quoatation marks neccesary) is disturbing to me. If you would care to do even a little research, you would find that fathers face considerable systemic discrimination and disadvantage. What a classic and ridiculous slander that all father's rights activists are in for is controlling their exwives and children. And it's telling that you criminalize all fathers (for what? wanting to actually participate in the lives of their children?), yet won't believe for a second that even one mother could possibly try to turn her children against their father (forgive me, I know this space is reserved for suggestions on improving the article, but sometimes certain things need to be addressed).

I would contribute to the discussion here by saying it is hoped that someone with your highly dubious viewpoint would not contribute your bias to such an article. You may say I have a bias---well, don't worry, I'm not contributing to this article; I'm just giving editors here a heads up to be weary of bias against Gardner as well as for him. 71.7.217.61 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing a bit

"Gardner's contributions to the field of general psychotherapy with children, psychotherapy with children of divorce, and custody evaluations are widely, although cited."

Something's missing from this sentence fragment. Someone who knows what's what, please fix it.Parakkum 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The article only mentions twice that Gardner killed himself

Someone felt this was really important ot mention many times, so perhaps more editors should take the lead and add that in whenever possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any reason whatsoever to mention the suicide and "add that in whenever possible". What could possibly be the reason for doing so, other than smearing late dr. Gardner's reputation? I suggest that link no. 11, in the section (Notes) be removed ASAP, as it clearly is an unserious one! As such it has no validity on Wikipedia. --190.120.238.20 (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Friend of justice.

Addition: what does "Autosigned by SineBot" mean? --190.120.238.20 (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Friend of Justice

This is an article about a person, which includes all relevant information - including that he committed suicide. The fact is, he died by his own hand after a considerable period of chronic pain. There's no disparagement of his person, if you feel that committing suicide is somehow a moral judgement, that is your problem and not wikipedia's.

User:SineBot tags edits to talk pages that are not signed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The link to the judith .m simon anti-gardner article "A self-made man" at liznotes is not much more than a blog posting

an anti-gardner site link, links to liznotes which is obviously biased towards sole custody of kids to the the mother, but more than that, the essay by Judith M. Simon, is a reprint of an essay from "Swans". Visit Swans, it is not much more than a blog online since 1996. They publish only on the web, there is no peer review. Simon is herself not notable to the casual googler (that is, she can't be found or identified as the bottom of her article claims, as a health and science writer), and she has no wiki page to back her up. Her "article" is entirely unsourced.

I am going to remove the link from the main wiki page and place it here "for storage"

• A Self-Made Man Suggests that Creative Therapeutics is a vanity press.

71.39.78.68 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

His own words: "Fact: I do own Creative Therapeutics, Inc., and since 1978 I have published most (but not all) of my books through Creative Therapeutics". So the above attacks on Simon, including putting the word article in "scare quotes" seems somewhat unfair. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Mention of feminist critics criticisms was removed, why?

This was removed from the article, I am not sure why.

There is considerable criticism of Gardner by feminist critics. Kim Gandy alleged him to say rape victims "gain pleasure from being beaten, bound, and otherwise made to suffer" and that it is "the price they are willing to pay for gaining the gratification of receiving the sperm." or that masochistic women gain pleasure in this way. and that "the child who has suffered bona fide abuse may very well have enjoyed the experience".

I think it's relevant to Gardner, his work, his life, and even his death to note Kim Gandy (head of NOW)'s misrepresentations of his work. 70.6.83.8 (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I just removed it again. These are extremely loaded quotes which need much better sourcing. He may indeed have said this, or not, I don't know; nevertheless, it needs much better referencing (perhaps even a primary source). It's a definite stretch (and nearly impossible to believe) that a scientist would have said such things on this subject and wouldn't be criticized all over the place for it. The comments just seem so out there....

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 23:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Feminist criticism does not belong in an article about the man. It is only appropriate in the article about PAS itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.73.42 (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason why criticism of him personally shouldn't be included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.206.250.2 (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Unsigned IP, such criticism is character assassination. Also feminists should know that utilization and promotion of false accusations is wrong. Gardner taught that PA is child abuse -- whether father or mother is the abusive alienating side.-Yohananw (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Misinformation Versus Facts About the Contributions of Richard A. Gardner, M.D.

It's important to mention this document which has been prepared to provide corrections for certain misrepresentations and misperceptions of some of Gardner's contributions. He explained : "Some of these originated from conflicts in the legal arena, where attorneys frequently select out-of-context material in order to enhance their positions in courts of law. This is the nature of the adversary system, and it is one of the causes of the controversy that sometimes surround my contributions. Some of these misperceptions and misrepresentations have become so widespread that I considered it judicious to formulate this statement."

• Misperceptions versus facts about Richard A. Gardner,
• The American Journal of Family Therapy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garpsy (talk • contribs) 07:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Gardner published his rebuttal in a professional journal and on his website.

• Richard A. Gardner. Misinformation Versus Facts About the Contributions of Richard A. Gardner, M.D. American Journal of Family Therapy. Volume 30, 2002 - Issue 5. Pages 395-416. Published online: 30 Nov 2010 https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180260296305
• The rebuttal on Gardner's defunct website (May 2002 revision) is accessible on https://web.archive.org However, it may not be citeable as wiki doesn't seem to allow citing a web archive. BTW, the title there is Misinformation..., but the web page file name begins misperceptions....
• The rebuttal is also accessible elsewhere in whole or in part.

In his rebuttal Gardner uses the words misinformation, misperceptions and misrepresentations. (Some criticism of Gardner's work might also be described by the related term disinformation).-Yohananw (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

New discussion

From shrinikie. Do not confuse what someone did with how others use or misuse what someone did. Gardner did some amazing work in the field of working with children, including pioneering play techniques still considered standard now. He did not advocate child abuse, and is frequently linked to those, such as Bruce Rind, who do. He did become interested in psychologic abuse of kids caught in divorces. A careful review of what he said and wrote, rather than that of what others say about him is important for a NEUTRAL review of who he was. You should note that failure to be included in the DSM is of no consequence, as many things, such as grief, are not in the DSM, but questionable diagnoses are. It is also important to note, that in the area of motivations, when evaluating people in psychologic terms, that there are impulses people have that may be within the range of ordinary as impulses, but not in the realm of legal or moral if acted out, say a desire to take money not one's own, resisted as wrong, or fleeing a battle field, but completing the combat mission. Due to the sensitive nature of pedophilic impulses, childhood sexuality etc, it is often a source of misunderstand that the attempts to elucidate such impulses is not an attempt to endorse such. Again, just look up the work of true pedopile advocates and compare.

All this is to get to the point that there are silly attempts to diminish a person by lessening his credentials, say, calling a doctor "mister." To keep trying to diminish credentials since the person is a volunteer, diminishes the Wiki article and is silly. Clinical Professor means non-tenure in medical school.

Whether parental alienation rises to a full syndrome or not also doesn't negate the reality that children are pulled apart in divorce, and that many parents do attempt or succeed in demonizing the other parent.

Finally, it is important,NEVER to repeat a quote, either out of context, nor without a citation, as any charged field will incite misquotation and outright fraudulent advocacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrinkie89 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: Seriously important to understand is that a child's view of sexual abuse is not traumatic in the same way adult rape is to an adult. Children become confused because there are pleasurable feelings that they neither understand nor are ready for, often mixed wiha host of other sensations and betrayal of trust. If you actually read what Gardner wrote, not propaganda, it becomes clear he is repeating observations from Freud and other psychoanalysts, not advocating rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrinkie89 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Seriously important to understand is that a child's view of sexual abuse is not traumatic in the same way adult rape is to an adult." Would you say that a "child's view" of sexual assault is that it is: 1. More traumatic than it is for an adult? 2. Less traumatic than it is for an adult? Or, 3. As traumatic as it is for an adult? Not sure the point you're trying to make here.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Bali, per WP:OR, WP:FORUM and WP:TPG I don't know if we want to encourage or engage in debates over questions like that. Very little of the above commentary is related to actually improving the page, and I would like to focus on what is.

Neutrality on wikipedia does not mean "lack of criticism". Neutrality means the page discusses the topic with a focus and proportion relative to the attention of independent, reliable sources. It is quite possible that Gardner's page is lacking positive commentary - but this is addressed by finding and incorporating reliable sources that discuss Gardner in a positive way, not by engaging in personal commentary or using peacock terms about him. Please feel free to expand on Gardner's contributions to psychology and psychiatry, but only using information that can be verified using reliable sources. Noting that Gardner held an unpaid position is a valid statement, one the NYT felt was worth making. That doesn't mean you can't expand on what else he contributed, and I would urge you to do so. I will note two other things:

1. Please do not use this page to soapbox about parental rights, fathers' rights, the flaws in divorce laws or other issues. Please dedicate your efforts on those topics to the appropriate pages, again using reliable sources.
2. Bruce Rind didn't advocate child abuse, and it's a borderline WP:BLP violation to say he did. Please redact your comment as BLP violations even on talk pages are very serious matters.

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Suicide details

I honestly can't see a need to include the details of his suicide, no matter that we apparently have a copy of the autopsy report. Is there a reason to include them that I'm not seeing? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The facts that he committed suicide and that he suffered severe chronic pain are relevant but other specific details of his death are not relevant. (Autopsy reports are may be relevant for entries on suicide methods.) He had an illustrious career with great influence, continuing impact and controversy, but he was not a public figure. I collapsed the Suicide section into Personal life and death. The whole entry needs much editing based on primary sources - i.e. his website (web archived in 2007 and also partly into RA Warshak's site at the request of Gardner's family), his many writings and works, and authority sources.-Yohananw (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Bad wording: Real Science

The segment that says "Real science states that if a mother or father attempts to alienate a child, the child will want to see the other parent more." sounds like an opinion or marketing piece. Science is not an talking thing (e.g. a person or a book) and thus unable to state anything.

Saying "real science" only diminishes credibility as it obscures who is the one actually making the claim. Gjvnq (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)