Talk:Parental alienation syndrome

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)

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.[1][2]
• 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.[3][4] 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,[5] and its inclusion supported by multiple editors.[6][7][8] --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: [9]
Warshak source: [10] (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".[11]. 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 [12]. 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[13] [14]) 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 [15]:

"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.[16] 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.[17], and repeated over and over again subsequently.[18][19][20][21] 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.[22]. 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

"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

[[23]] 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 appear in the next coming edition of the DSM as was published today -but