Talk:Richard Warshak

Please stop violating the MOS

Warshakn, please stop violating the Manual of Style, Wikipedia's style guide. As per MOS:REFPUNC, punctuation marks (other than dashes) go before <ref></ref> tags. As per MOS:HEAD, section headers are in sentence case (i.e. they are capitalized as they would be written in a sentence). I know this is a lot, but please follow it. David1217 ^{What I've done} 18:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Tags

If you look above, the reason the COI tag was placed is obvious. The conflicted editor added a bunch of promotional content and cited mostly works by Warshak, and the article has not been cleaned up yet. It will take somebody rolling up their sleeves and doing a lot of work to turn this into an actual WP article. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Request edit on 8 November 2018

In Education section: Replace: currently a Clinical Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry at UT Southwestern. With: a past Clinical Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry at UT Southwestern.

Rationale: I no longer hold this position.174.239.2.210 (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply 08-NOV-2018

  Edit request declined  

1. Claims of employment are usually straight forward, with the COI editor being allowed to use official company communications (such as an About Us section of the company's website) as a source. Had the subject used the account for which they are already identified, this may have been done without those ref's. However, as the IP editor cannot be confirmd to be the subject, the IP editor would need to provide these references.  Spintendo  03:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Issues With Bias, Promotion

This article reads as if it is written and sanitized by an interested party. There appears to be a pattern of inappropriate deletion of resources and content that question the subject, and of revising material so that it reads as almost or perhaps actually promotional. 24.52.64.230 (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

In reviewing the article, even without reference to its historic issues, my impression is that there are apparent conflict of interest issues that should be addressed here on the talk page. Arllaw (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

What content on the page reads like an advertisement?Lionhar (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The article has been written and sanitized to avoid any criticism and, on the whole, to be laudatory. The controversy section has been edited to be effectively promotional. There is a history of editing activity on this page that suggests that the page is monitored for any effort to render the page neutral or to discuss actual controversy, such that although the page is unedited for months any such change seems to be removed or reverted within 24 hours. Arllaw (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. Controversy section rewritten to reflect both sides of controversy in a neutral discussion. Lionhar (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the case may be, your edit history can be interpreted as suggesting that you have conflict of interest issues with this page. Do you have a conflict of interest that you should disclose? Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Just want to help improve Wikipedia. Thanks. Lionhar (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for explanation of deletions

In this past year a number of assertions and references were deleted from the article, and I would like to develop a better understanding of some of the deletions. Arllaw (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The following was deleted with the note, "Unsourced and inaccurate".

Warshak has made findings of parental alienation even without first meeting with or interviewing the children whom he found to be unjustly alienated from a parent. Warshak has been documented to conduct his family reunification workshops with a psychologist named Randy Rand, even though Rand had previously lost his professional license for gross negligence and unprofessional conduct, and had testified in a child custody case that a child whom he had never met had been alienated and should go through the program.

The first reference states, "In S.G.B. v. S.J.L., the court set aside part of an award concluding that the workshop was in the best interest of the boys because the arbitrator relied too heavily on an assessment of them prepared by Richard Warshak, who admitted he hadn't met them personally.... The arbitration took place in February and March 2008 and, based on Warshak's report that the children were suffering irrational alienation towards their mother, the arbitrator awarded sole custody of both children to her and ordered that they participate in the workshop to help to restore their ties with her."

The content thus appears to be sourced. Is the deletion, then, based upon the belief that the article is incorrect and, if so, can that belief be substantiated from reliable sources?

The second reference states, "Family Bridges was started under a different name in the early '90s by a psychologist named Randy Rand. Two years before Ana and Alex got to the program, Dr. Rand's psychology license was suspended for gross negligence and unprofessional conduct. He had testified in another case that a child was severely alienated and should go to his program, even though he had never interviewed the child. Ana says Rand was there during her sessions, but Dr. Warshak, who testified in her case, ran the show".

The reference appears to support the deleted content, so is the issue here that the public radio piece was incorrect about Rand, Warshak's continued work with Rand, or both? And, if so, based upon what reliable information? Arllaw (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Thank you for carefully articulating your concerns about some deletions to this page, some of which I made. It has been nearly a year since I made those edits, so I have to search sources to refresh my memory of the reasons for the deletions. Unfortunately, I regret that the time I can invest in this article is limited. But your questions are important and I will over time try to help you develop a better understanding of the basis for the deletions. I hope others will pitch in and perhaps your subsequent research will help answer some of your questions.

For now I will respond to your first question and then make some general comments.

Re: “Warshak has made findings of parental alienation even without first meeting with or interviewing the children whom he found to be unjustly alienated from a parent.”

I deleted this sentence because the reference attached to this statement was not the arbitrator’s findings mentioned in the newspaper article, but a journalist’s interpretation of the arbitrator’s findings. Most important, the journalist’s account does not agree with the court’s account of Warshak’s testimony nor with the reasons that the court set aside part of the arbitrator’s award as described in the court’s findings. The reference states that “the arbitrator relied too heavily on an assessment of [the boys] prepared by Richard Warshak,” yet the court findings indicate that Warshak did not assess the children and did not claim to have assessed them. Also, elsewhere Warshak clarified the nature of his testimony in this case—which was not to make findings of parental alienation.

The published court decision supports Warshak’s representation, conflicts with the journalist’s account, and despite searching I found no evidence to suggest otherwise.

In the ruling on the case in question, B. (S.G.) v. L. (S.J.) 2010 ONSC 3717, June 30, 2010, Superior Court Justice Mesbur wrote: “In reasons delivered May 14, 2009 [[2009] O.J. No. 1998, 66 R.F.L. (6th) 103 (S.C.J.)], [Justice Herman] held [at para. 47]: ‘The legal errors in the arbitration award concerned the remedy for parental alienation, not the finding that parental alienation had occurred. In reaching my decision on disposition, I have considered the desirability of addressing the estrangement between the mother and her children. However, the problem with fashioning an appropriate remedy is that I do not have an adequate evidentiary basis to enable me to determine what remedy would be in J.B.’s best interests.’”

Justice Mesbur further wrote, “Dr. Warshak testified at the arbitration about the Workshop and parental alienation in general. He was qualified as an expert to provide opinion evidence about these issues. He could not offer an opinion about the B children in particular, since he had not met them, or their father.” [Paragraph 34].

My search of the entire decision revealed no mention anywhere that Warshak made any findings of parental alienation nor offered any opinions about any of the parties or their children. Furthermore, the decision mentioned two custody and access assessments, by Dr. Awad and Dr. Goldstein. Presumably opinions from these experts were part of the evidentiary basis for conclusions about the children’s psychological status.

I found this decision on page 197 of this document: http://digital.ontarioreports.ca/ontarioreports/20101210?pm=2&fs=1&pg=1#pg1

Justice Mesbur’s description of the subject matter of Warshak’s testimony is consistent with Warshak’s own account in this post. I realize that a blogpost by the subject of a Wikipedia article is a weak source. But in context with Justice Mesbur’s ruling, unless there is a reliable source documenting that the subject of this article was guilty of unprofessional conduct, it is best to delete material carrying such an accusation.

Warshak: “The purpose of my testimony was to educate the court about general issues and the state of knowledge regarding parent-child conflicts and children’s rejection of a parent, and to describe various interventions for families in which the court finds that the children’s rejection of a parent is unjustified, irrational, disproportionate to the child’s experience of the parent, and not in the children’s best interests. An expert witness who testifies in this capacity is obliged to explain the limitations of his work in the case. As is my duty, I clarified the purpose of my testimony and volunteered the information that I had not conducted an evaluation and was not there to make a specific recommendation for this family. Rather than point out that I had testified in a professionally ethical and objective manner and properly apprised the court of the scope of my work in the case, including limitations, some bloggers imply that the Family Court Judge ‘discovered’ the limitations and that I then had to ‘admit’ that I had not seen the children. This is not what happened. I never testified before the Family Court Judge. The Judge simply noted what I had volunteered in my testimony in the Arbitration. My professional colleagues understand that what I did was precisely in accord with professional ethics.” Source: http://warshak.com/blog/2010/12/02/answering-critics-part-1-2/ Answering critics – Part 1, Plutoverse, Posted on December 2, 2010.

Note the subtle difference between the journalist’s account that Warshak “admitted he hadn't met them personally,” and Warshak’s claim that he “volunteered the information” as he is professionally obliged to meet professional standards.

In the mental health community it is a serious charge to accuse a psychologist of diagnosing someone without meeting personally with that person. A charge that the subject of this article was guilty of unprofessional conduct should not be included without much more support and more reliable support than one journalist’s account that does not accurately represent the actual court findings.

Given the inconsistency between the journalist’s account and the transcript of the court findings, the severity of the charges against the subject in the material I deleted, and the consistency between the subject’s account and the court’s written decision, I thought at the time that it would be more consistent with Wikipedia standards to delete the material in question, rather than provide a one-sided view of this case.

Let me add a general concern. I think there is a potential for this page to be misused as a platform for people to hash out their positions about topics the subject has written about, e.g., using criticisms of the subject as a proxy for criticisms of the concept of parental alienation that are more appropriately suited for the article on parental alienation. By comparison, the article on psychologist Stephen Ceci, who has written about false accusations of sexual abuse, does not include statements made by his critics or advocacy comments made by those who believe his work harms sexually abused children.

I think it makes sense to be very circumspect, retaining information that is factual and is neither promotional-sounding nor an accusation for which no evidence or weak evidence exists. I place more stock in media reports that present both sides of an issue relevant to the subject of this article and consider peer-reviewed research. In time I will do my best to respond to your other questions. As in the case of the first deletion you questioned, there are good reasons to be concerned that the other material deleted was similarly poorly sourced, inaccurate, and written from a biased point of view. Lionhar (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It is important to recall when editing Wikipedia that we don't do original research when editing here. We also exercise extreme care with original sources and do not rely upon court records as references for biographies of living persons (see [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]). It is important that material be correct, and it is important to recall that reporters can get the facts wrong, but its important that we support our edits (including the deletion of content) with an appropriate explanation, at a minimum an accurate note. The bigger question in this case seems to be whether the single source at issue is sufficient sourcing. As I think your extensive comment makes clear, this particular deletion merited explanation on the talk page. Arllaw (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for calling my attention to the guideline about not relying upon court records for biographies of living persons and directing my attention to WP:BLPPRIMARY. I have a lot to learn about BLP and editing Wikipedia articles. In view of your experience, I am now inclined to discuss proposed changes and concerns on this Talk page before editing the main article. I will keep in mind the need to consult back to WP:BLPPRIMARY in making comments on this Talk page.

I had not known that a court record cannot be relied upon as a reference for the main article, but it is permitted to mention such sources on the Talk page to clarify whether another source is accurate or not. As I prepare explanations of the other deletions I am wondering if the article on Warshak is the best place for a discussion of controversy about programs for alienated children. I will elaborate on this in a future comment. Lionhar (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Re: deleted material: Warshak has been documented to conduct his family reunification workshops with a psychologist named Randy Rand, even though Rand had previously lost his professional license for gross negligence and unprofessional conduct, and had testified in a child custody case that a child whom he had never met had been alienated and should go through the program.

The reason for the deletion is that the radio program was incorrect about Rand and about Warshak’s continued work with Rand, the material deleted was incorrect about Rand’s license status, and the material deleted creates an impression that Warshak and Rand conducted family reunification workshops together even after Rand “lost his professional license” (which is not exactly accurate). If there is no evidence that Warshak and Rand conducted the workshop together after Rand’s psychology license status changed, mentioning Rand in this context seems like an argument ad hominem, intended to taint Warshak’s reputation by association. Rand’s behavior and license status is relevant to an article on Warshak only if Warshak and Rand together provided psychological services after the time Rand placed his license on inactive status. In fact, I question whether the article on Warshak is the best place for a discussion of controversy about programs for alienated children. (I will elaborate on this in a future comment.)

It is a serious charge to allege that a psychologist teamed with an unlicensed psychologist and together they provided psychological services to a client, essentially sanctioning the practice of psychology without a license. Such an allegation should be well sourced. On the radio program a young lady claimed that Rand was present at the workshop, but not that Rand provided any services to the family (“Rand was there during her sessions, but Dr. Warshak . . . ran the show.”) In a professional article Warshak indicated that an administrative support person is present at the workshop and this person provides non-psychological services such as operating audio-video equipment and dealing with the workshop site’s management. On LinkedIn Rand describes his current role as Administrative Services Director.

In a peer-reviewed professional journal article (reference #29) Warshak claimed he had not conducted a family reunification workshop for what would now be approximately eight years. Warshak’s website claims, “In the past Dr. Warshak provided treatment for families with alienated children and conducted Family Bridges workshops. In order to devote more time to his research and writing Dr. Warshak does not currently provide such services. He continues to investigate the effectiveness of various interventions including outcomes of the Family Bridges workshop and has no business or legal affiliation with professionals who conduct any intervention for alienated children including Family Bridges.” Although these sources were written by Warshak, they nonetheless sees to meet the criteria for using “sources as sources on themselves.” Also, there is no evidence to the contrary.

Regarding Rand’s license status, it is not accurate that he “lost his professional license, although Rand was disciplined by the licensing board and he placed his license on Inactive status. This is one reason for deleting the sentence that included this phrase: “even though Rand had previously lost his professional license.” Apparently Rand’s license was not revoked and he did not surrender his license. According to the psychology licensing board’s website, Rand is on administrative probation and he chose to place his license on Inactive status, which is the status listed by the board as his current status. Further, I found no evidence that Rand has conducted a Family Bridges workshop since the time his license was on inactive status. As indicated above, Rand describes his role with Family Bridges as “Administrative Services Director.”

And, again, Rand’s behavior may not be relevant to an article on Warshak. Lionhar (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

As was previously explained, we don't do original research for Wikipedia. We certainly don't substitute our own personal understanding of a subject for that which can be derived from secondary sources. You claim a rather remarkable, in-depth knowledge of Warshak and his associates, their ideas, programs and the like, but deny any first-hand association -- which raises the question, where are you getting your information?

If you have a sound basis to assert that sources are incorrect, reliable sources that show a different side, then it may be better to present that information rather than simply deleting what you contend to be incorrect. "Radio program suggested [X], but [reliable source] suggests that to be [incorrect/misleading]", giving a more complete picture of the subject matter.

Within the context of this discussion, when you are making fact-based assertions about the subject matter and are contending that media coverage has the facts wrong, please share your sources with us. The deletion of material that is properly sourced (mainstream, credible sources) should be supported by something more than, in effect, "It's wrong because I say so." What are you looking at] when making these determinations?

As for Rand, to the extent that Warshak worked with and continues to work with Rand, that association may in fact be relevant. Arllaw (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if my comments violated Wikipedia’s policy about original research. I guess I am not clear on what information is appropriate to consider. From the article on OR: “The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.” I thought the sources I located were reliable. And the policy of no original research “does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.” Thus, I thought it was okay to include the information I found on the Talk page. At this point I am confused about how a peer-reviewed published article, or information on the website of a licensing board, is not a reliable source and instead is “original research” and about why I am not supposed to mention such a source on the Talk page.

To answer your question, I got all my information through sources I found on the Internet. The sources I found were the reference #29 that I located simply by Googling the article’s title. At the end of that article there is a Disclosure statement that included the words I quoted about Warshak no longer conducting Family Bridges workshops. I found the information about Rand’s description of his role with Family Bridges on his LinkedIn page. I found the information that Rand was disciplined by his psychology board, and about Rand’s current psychology license status, on the website of the California Board of Psychology website [ psychology.ca.gov ].

As far as your suggestion "it may be better to present that information rather than simply deleting what you contend to be incorrect" this makes sense to me when it cannot be determined which information is correct. Given my uncertain understanding of the Wikipedia rules, however, I want to refrain from making any changes to the main page. You asked the reasons for the prior deletions, and I am trying to explain, using the sources that lead me to think the deleted material is incorrect. I hope that as long as I cite sources on the Talk page, and not on the main article page, I won’t be violating Wikipedia rules. After I provide my answers to all your questions about the prior deletions, regardless of whether they seem sufficient to you or fall outside the scope of proper Wikipedia considerations, I think I should bow out of this page and leave it to you and others to make edits to the main page. Lionhar (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

When an editor delets content that appears to be properly supported by reliable sources with a note that does not explain the actions, and comes back later to claim that the deletion was based upon independent research or first-hand knowledge, that's a problem. If in fact the material is problematic, then the problems should be explained; if there are reliable sources that present different information, they can be presented and discussed to determine what should and should not be included within the article.

You indicate that you deleted content about Warshak's conduct during therapy because you found that he wrote in an article that he no longer conducts that therapy. But that does not actually address what he did when he was conducting therapy and, if the content relates to subsequent events, tells us nothing about what Warshak has been doing since he wrote the article. The quote is thus insufficient to justify deleting content about Warshak's history as a therapist. That's clear, right? And no, vague allusions to what somebody wrote on linkedin is not within the realm of reliable sourcing. Arllaw (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

First, thank you for taking the time to explain this to me and to clarify your concerns. I see that I should have explained in more detail the reason for my deletions at the time I made them. The problem I now see is that the deleted material: “Warshak has been documented to conduct his family reunification workshops with a psychologist named Randy Rand, even though Rand had previously lost his professional license for gross negligence and unprofessional conduct,” implies that Warshak conducted the workshops with Rand after Rand had lost his license, a serious charge. But what is the documentation to support this?Lionhar (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I looked at your edits and have already described what the sources provided in relation to the deleted material. You can revisit those sources at your leisure. I am not interested in arguing about your deletions, but again welcome you to provide any reliable sources that you have which would support your edits and the assertions you made in your notes. Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The passage,

This form of therapy carries a very high financial cost and, due to its unproven nature, has been criticized as "quack therapy". These programs are often billed as educational or psycho-educational in order to avoid having to meet regulations and oversight that would apply to a psychological or medical treatment program.

The first claim about the cost of reunification therapy is supported by two references, the first asserting that reunification programs "can cost tens of thousands of dollars" (with more detailed cost information about the Family Bridges program) and the second that "A week at the workshop costs about US$40,000." Is the objection here that "very high financial cost" is too subjective? If so, wouldn't that be resolved by rephrasing to use the dollar figures from the cited references?

The second claim refers to the unproven nature of family reunification therapy and that it has been called "quack therapy". The Washington Post article cited for the prior point describes the programs as, "nascent and unproven 'reunification' programs", and the Makin article includes a specific assertion that reunification therapy is "quack therapy". I think that the language is a bit strong, and should have been revised to focus more on the unproved / controversial aspect of the therapy, but I'm otherwise unclear as to why the material was deleted.

The third claim, about how family reunification therapy is classified to avoid oversight, is supported by a reference that states, "Often the workshops are billed as educational or psycho-educational, which allows them to circumvent medical regulations and oversight (they are not covered by health insurance)." Is the issue here that the program founded by Warshak is classified and regulated as therapeutic and, if so, is there a resource that shows that the program is regulated as the practice of psychology / psychotherapy? Arllaw (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

“This form of therapy carries a very high financial cost” should not have been deleted, but I would phrase it as: “This workshop is costly.”

Family Bridges is not categorized as “a form of therapy.” As the second sentence of the deleted passage you asked about indicated, the workshop is described as either educational, or psycho-educational. For instance, reference #26 by Fidler & Bala (Barbara J. Fidler, & Nicholas Bala, (Children Resisting Postseparation Contact with a Parent: Concepts, Controversies, and Conundrums, 48 Fam. Ct. Rev. 10, 33) (2010) (stating, “Family Bridges provides psycho-education, not therapy and is facilitated by two professionals who work initially with the children and the rejected parent; followed by the favored parent should he or she agree to participate in a subsequent workshop or aftercare treatment.”).

Re: “These programs are often billed as educational or psycho-educational in order to avoid having to meet regulations and oversight that would apply to a psychological or medical treatment program.”

It is accurate to write that these programs are often described as educational or psycho-educational. But the source cited did not establish that the reason for such description is to avoid regulatory oversight. The source simply reported a speculation or allegation.

Re: your question, “is there a resource that shows that the program is regulated as the practice of psychology / psychotherapy?” Warshak’s website states, Q: “Is there any state regulation of Family Bridges workshops?” A: “Licensed professionals lead the workshops. The state board that grants the professional license regulates services provided by such professionals.” [1]

A note about the reliability of a newspaper article that reports allegations from one side with no documents or interviews from the other side. Even if a source is generally considered reliable, such as a major newspaper, if a newspaper article includes unverified allegations from a doctor’s patient, and these allegations cannot be verified, we should exercise great care not to include information in an article that might smear the reputation of the subject of the article. From WP:BLPPRIMARY: “Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people.” [WP:NOTRELIABLE] “Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.” [WP:SOURCE] And from the second box at the top of this Talk page: “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.” A newspaper might be considered an adequate source, nevertheless it could run a feature that is poorly sourced.

In the case of a patient’s unverified allegations about a doctor’s treatment, clearly “contentious material,” a doctor may be ethically bound not to comment publicly about the treatment. In such a case, the allegation would be better sourced if the medical board published a finding, or if a newspaper article accurately reports on the medical board’s finding. Macleans magazine [2] quotes Warshak as saying, “I’m sorry but I can’t speak about any case in which I’ve been involved, even if it is a matter of public record.” Given this position, if a source relies on allegations from a case in which Warshak was involved, and the source does not include Warshak’s perspective, if this source is going to be used to support a point in the Wikipedia article, shouldn’t the article also state that the source relied on allegations without reporting Warshak’s response to the allegations, whose professional ethics precluded him from responding in public, or something along those lines?Lionhar (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have confirmed that the program is not therapeutic, but is an educational program that avoids oversight and regulation, that makes all the more dubious your deletion of article content noting how this type of program avoids oversight. As for cost, if your concern was semantic that would again not be a valid reason to delete the content.

When allegations are from appropriate sources, it is not sufficient to delete them based upon the false claim that the sources are not reliable. The purpose of having standards for sources is to ensure that sources are of sufficient quality, not to permit arbitrary deletion of content that the subject of an article would prefer that others not read.

If Warshak chooses not to respond to allegations by his former patients, that could be noted in the article, but it's not a basis to delete the reports and complaints made by former patients from the article, even less so given that you added Warshaks's article in which he claims that most of the participants in his workshops are satisfied. Arllaw (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The content,

Some children who have been forced to participate in the program have reported that they were forced to repudiate their truthful complaints about the parent that Warshak had determined to be alienated.

Was rephrased to,

Some children who participated in such programs have alleged that they were forced to repudiate their complaints about a parent they rejected.

With the note, "Unsourced POV, no support for allegation that Warshak determined the parent to be alienated. Court-appointed evaluators and courts make such determinations."

The material is supported by two references so it's incorrect to suggest that it was unsourced. The POV seems to be that of persons quoted in the article, not a Wikipedia editor. As for there being "no support for allegation that Warshak determined the parent to be alienated", it is difficult for me to believe that Warshak would put children whom he did not believe to be alienated from a parent through reunification therapy. Also, the first reference states, "[One child] says [Rand and Warshak] pushed the parental alienation angle hard and told her and Alex they couldn't leave the program until they admitted their dad had brainwashed them". That assertion, and the story outlined in the Washington Post article, support the statement that children were pressed to deny that their asserted reasons for their estrangement from the alienated parent were false. Finally, Warshak works as an expert witness and in that capacity makes findings in relation to parents involved in custody disputes. The sentence at issue could justifiably be clarified and revised, but I have trouble with the explanation provided. Arllaw (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between stating that Warshak would not provide a reunification workshop to children whom he did not believe to be alienated from a parent, and stating that Warshak determined the parent to be alienated. The determination that a parent is alienated is made by the court, in some cases relying on a finding by a custody evaluator. While I now understand that a court decision cannot be used a source for the main article, this prohibition “does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.” As the court decision I quoted previously made clear, although Warshak works (or worked) as an expert witness, it is not correct to state, as you did, “in that capacity makes findings in relation to parents involved in custody disputes.” An expert witness can testify as an educating witness, offering no opinions about the litigants. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness#Educating_witness)

Also, the sentence was rephrased from: “have reported that they were forced to repudiate their truthful complaints about” to: “have alleged that they were forced to repudiate their complaints about” because the article should not editorialize about whether the allegations are truthful or not. Lionhar (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As we have already discussed, you are expressing your own opinions -- not those from reliable sources. You may strongly believe that an article is wrong, but you still need to substantiate your beliefs with reliable sources. Further, when an expert witness testifies as an expert witness and opines that parental alienation has occurred, he is in fact expressing his findings -- that's true whether or not the judge accepts the expert's opinion. Also, as was previously discussed, no ethical therapist is going to recommend, put children through, or charge tens of thousands of dollars for therapy that children do not need. I assume you're not accusing Warshak of any of the above.

If you can produce relevant, reliable sources to support your opinions, provide them. But neither your personal opinions nor your original research are proper foundations for modifying a Wikipedia article. Arllaw (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The content,

Warshak is a proponent of "family reunification", a process that involves intensive programs with children and their rejected parent. Some children who participated in such programs have alleged that they were forced to repudiate their complaints about a parent they rejected.

Was deleted with the note, "removed inaccurate info and provided sources". It is not at all clear why the first sentence was removed, as it appears to be neutral and accurate. The second had just been revised by the editor who deleted it, see the note above, and it's not clear what remained inaccurate about the revised sentence. Arllaw (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The content,

Although Warshak's testimony has been allowed in court, questions remain as to whether his theories and therapeutic model have sufficient scientific validity to be properly admitted or considered by a U.S. court.

Was deleted with the note, "Removed cited source that did not support the point made". The article discusses parental alienation theory, including Warshak's theory, then discusses its admissibility. It is not clear to me why the content deletion occurred, or how the reference does not support the content that was deleted. Arllaw (talk)

The cited source referred to a theory of parental alienation syndrome, not to Warshak’s theory. The source explicitly stated: “Although Warshak refers to parental alienation as a concept far more frequently than a syndrome, he has published a number of books and articles on parental alienation syndrome.” But the footnote to the previous sentence stated: “Warshak discusses parental alienation versus estrangement; however, he never actually refers to parental alienation syndrome but a number of his publications include the term ”parental alienation syndrome.” The fact that a publication includes a term does not constitute support of the term’s validity. In fact, this Wikipedia article states, “Warshak published an article that discussed the controversy about whether a child's alienation from a parent could be diagnosed as a syndrome and presented arguments both for and against the use of the term parental alienation syndrome.” Discussing a controversy does not constitute endorsement of either side of a controversy, and the fact that the cited source observed that Warshak “never actually refers to parental alienation syndrome” means that this source does not support the sentence that was deleted and thus it was appropriate to delete the sentence. Also, the cited source provided no discussion about whether Warshak’s theories and therapeutic model have sufficient validity to be properly admitted or considered by a U.S. court. In fact, the cited source does not mention the words “therapeutic” or “model.”Lionhar (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The source addresses the legal standard for admission of all theories of parental alienation, including Warshak's. Arllaw (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. But I cannot find where in this source you found a discussion of Warshak’s “theories” or “therapeutic model.” Perhaps you can provide a page citation from the source where this source articulated Warshak’s theory or his therapeutic model? Or are you drawing on your own research? I didn’t find any place where the source mentioned or articulated anything about “Warshak’s theory.” Do you have some independent knowledge of a source that articulates Warshak’s “theory”? The only thing I found in the Wikipedia article on Warshak that could remotely be regarded as a theory (although it is not a theory in the technical sense of a “theory”) is this sentence: “Warshak takes the position that a child's alienation from a parent may be the result of many causes, including the behavior of the rejected parent.”

What do you think Warshak’s theory is, and where do you find this in the source? The source mentioned Warshak only in connection with the discussion of parental alienation syndrome, and the source focused on parental alienation syndrome. The source addressed the legal standard for admission of parental alienation syndrome, as articulated in the source’s conclusion: “The use of parental alienation as a ‘syndrome’ has not been widely accepted in the medical field, nor has it gained much recognition in child custody cases.” Also, as I previously commented, the source never mentions Warshak’s “therapeutic model.” Lionhar (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

If you choose to read the article as somehow discussing Warshak's theories and then somehow excluding them from the larger discussion, then you have shared your opinion even as others disagree with it. Given how frequently you have edited this article, and given your participation in this discussion, I am surprised that you need to ask for an explanation of Warshak's theory of parental alienation. May I suggest that it would be helpful for you research Warshak's position before continuing to debate how it should be described on this page? That should lead to a more constructive discussion. Perhaps you can also then share here your reliable sources on Warshak's theory of P.A. and why it doesn't fall under the evidentiary analysis as presented in the law review article at issue. Arllaw (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

References

So, no thoughts on these issues at all? Should this material then be largely restored to the article? Arllaw (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see comments above left today. I do not think the material should be largely restored and given time I will explain why, as I did for some of the material you asked about.Lionhar (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)