Talk:Parental alienation/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Opening paragraph

Per Wikipedia's style guidance,

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

As I see it, a number of aspects of the current lead paragraph are problematic.

• The lead makes assertions about PA that are not included in the subsequent article;
• The lead does not mention or summarize any controversies in relation to PA.
• The lead closes with a sentence about consequences, but there is no associated content in the article discussing the consequences of PA.

Given past difficulties in making even modest changes to the lead, I thought it appropriate to raise these concerns for discussion in advance of discussion of possible changes. Arllaw (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added a section on consequences, developed principally from the sources identified in the last sentence of the current lead. The references are unsurprising in that they find acts of parental alienation to be potentially harmful to children. To the extent that it exists, it would be interesting to see some research into the question of why some children are affected by parental alienation while others are not, or that correlate alleged severity of parental alienation with outcome.

I did not find among the sources cited for the assertion the claims about long-term or lifelong estrangement, although I suspect that sources are 'out there' that could be used to support that claim. The references address the consequences of parental alienation, but do so generally as opposed to within the context of divorce and custody -- that is, the retrospective studies don't appear to look further at whether family units remained intact or whether any custody issues or litigation were involved. I did not find within the references support for the claim of significantly increased lifetime risk of physical illness. Can anybody help me out with page references, or provide additional reliable sources?

If the consequences section can be expanded with reliable sources so as to support the claims presented in that sentence, then the article should be so amended. But the lead should not make assertions that are not supported by references or by the content of the article. Arllaw (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The sentence from the lead paragraph, "It is a distinctive form of psychological abuse and family violence, towards both the child and the rejected family members, that occurs almost exclusively in association with family separation or divorce, particularly where legal action is involved", makes three claims, all of which are in their own way problematic.

First, the article does not discuss PA as a form of child abuse and, while the assertion that PA is a form of "family violence" exists, that is not a mainstream description. Using a more extreme description, not supported by the article, raises NPOV issues. While the article does indicate that PA can be harmful to children, the claim that it is child abuse (more so a "distinctive form of psychological abuse") should be supported by the content of the article.

Second, the article presently contradicts the claim that PA "occurs almost exclusively in association with family separation or divorce", and the references cited do not make that assertion. That portion of the sentence should be reconciled with the content of the article and with the assertions made in the references.

Third, there is no indication within the article or cited references that parental alienation becomes more prevalent when legal action is involved. The Harman article (page 64) describes the difficulty of extrapolating that sort of conclusion from the data, noting for example that the data did not distinguish between reported incidents of P.A. involving a married parent such that it was possible to determine if the parents remained married, or if they had divorced and remarried. The Kopetski article speaks of the problems raised by PA during divorce but makes no analysis of relative prevalence. The cited book assumes that parental alienation becomes more likely within a high-conflict divorce, and that may well be correct, but it does not shed light on other divorce or custody cases or provide data to support that thesis.

I do suspect that acts falling under the penumbra of parental alienation become more likely when there is relationship stress, and more so when there is a relationship break-up with a custody dispute, but are there reliable studies and references that document those impressions? If so, the article should be expanded to include them. Arllaw (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Does anybody care to share some thoughts? Is anybody aware of reliable sources on the issue of prevalance? Arllaw (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The sentence, "The most common cause is one parent wishing to exclude the other parent from the life of their child, though family members or friends, as well as professionals involved with the family (including psychologists, lawyers and judges), may contribute to the process", seems to me to combine separate issues in a manner that is confusing. Breaking the sentence into its component parts, the first portion is really a description of motive, not cause. The second portion is about cause, but reflects the difficulty of assigning the consequences of parental alienation to a parent alone, when there are other actors within a system whose acts and decisions may be as important or possibly even more important than those of the parent. The sentence could be divided, perhaps with the latter portion developed to reflect some of the controversy over PA (that phrase already reflecting a complicating factor in the overall theory of PA). Arllaw (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This sentence is not going to be simple to divide and rephrase, but it's headed toward revision. Does anybody have any ideas or suggestions before revision occurs? Arllaw (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI The following is a link to a report concerning recent editorial conduct on this page. I look forward to resuming evidence-based discussions on this Talk page and to improving the accuracy of the article itself in collaboration with others. Skythrops (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Arllaw_reported_by_User:Skythrops_(Result:_)

You chose not to participate in recent discussion, and have not identified anything even slightly inaccurate or inappropriate about the changes made, which were only made following discussion and a considerable waiting period with no objection. If you have any valid objections to the changes, you could have made them at any time, and obviously may still do so. Arllaw (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi all. In reviewing Skythrops submission I have to agree with what they have stated. Personally, and in accordance with Wikipedia's recommendation I have withdraw from the discussion for a period of time, as it is very difficult to maintain an reasonable discussion in the face of personal attacks, closing of discussion contrary to request, etc.

I have reverted to the previous form of the lead for the following reasons:

1. The wording was discussed at great length and agreed to in a previous talk discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parental_alienation#Correcting_the_Opening_Paragraph), which I note has been closed by Arllaw for further comment.
2. The edits made do not add to the definition, if anything they confuse the topic.
3. The references added refer to PAS not PA.
4. The statements made in the revised lead are not supported by the discussion in the Talk pages by the referenced psychologist.
5. The second paragraph is internally contradictory - the first sentence implicitly endorses the concept of PA and the final sentence questions it. That discussion should be held in the later paragraphs, not the definition.

As noted previously and insisted upon by Arllaw this is now an invocation of the BRD cycle, a BOLD edit has been made, now Reverted and Discussion should follow, I trust that this can be achieved? DrPax (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

BRD is not a tool to revert changes that were proposed on the talk page and left open for discussion for an extended time before implementation. Reversions should be explained. You chose not to participate in discussion of the changes and, like Skythrops, have not identified any issues with the changes that were left open for discussion on this page for a considerable time before implementation. Your deletion of appropriate content and insertion of content that contains inaccuracies and is inconsistent with NPOV should be promptly reversed. Arllaw (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the original/current opening paragraph and definition has a number of benefits over the changes recently proposed by Arllaw and should be retained. The original opening paragraph is clearer and less ambiguously phrased. At risk of repeating prior discussion, and given that Arllaw has recently closed down the relevant sections on this page, I believe that the current, long-standing opening paragraph:

1. Is accurate, succinct, well-referenced and carefully crafted. It can, of course, always be improved and I look forward to doing so, by consensus, via this Talk page;

2. Provides a simple, one-sentence summary of what Parental Alienation is, in plain English;

3. Further describes, in an appropriate order: what it is, what causes it, what its consequences are, as well as its significance. As such, it matches the key themes of Wikipedia’s proposed format for such articles and each sentence can be expanded upon in the appropriate section in the body of the article. (The fact that some of those sections have not yet been fleshed out should not preclude the inclusion of a summary sentence (of “basic facts”, as Wikipedia puts it, with relevant citations) up-front;

4. Does a good job of meeting the Wikipedia criteria cited by Arllaw, insofar as:

4.1. It stands on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic;

4.2. It identifies the topic, establishes context, explains why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points;

4.3. It does not refer to the historical controversy over the related term Parental Alienation Syndrome given that the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. However, this point is worth further discussion to reach consensus about an NPOV;

4.4. It establishes the notability of the article's subject (e.g. as a form of psychological child abuse) in the first few sentences;

4.5. It covers basic facts, supported by good references, enabling expanded discussion in the body of the article;

5. I and others have spent much time discussing this paragraph above, in some detail. Several authors have commented positively about this text, dating back to 2015 when it was first proposed in the Talk section above. The current version has effectively been supported by multiple authors and, more importantly, reflects available evidence in peer-reviewed journals.

The changes recently proposed by Arllaw, and now under discussion under the BRD protocol invoked by DrPax, are not an improvement in several ways and make the opening paragraph less accurate. A strong case needs to made for the multiple, recently proposed changes to replace prior, long-standing text. I suggest that the onus is upon the author proposing new changes to make a case, and build consensus, for such changes – which cannot, in my view, be done by unilaterally closing down prior/ongoing debate on this Talk page about this very paragraph. Nonetheless, I’ve taken the time here to provide some additional information as to some of the issues with the proposed changes and why I believe they do not improve the text. Among other things, I believe that:

1. It’s not clear what the phrase “parental alienation is most often attributed to” really means; certainly, the references cited do not do any analysis of how often parental alienation is attributed to different causes;

2. It’s confusing in the next sentence to say that certain actions “contribute to estrangement”, without having established the connection between alienation and estrangement;

3. It’s misleading (though often done) to associate parental alienation with “high conflict divorce”;

4. The use, twice, of the term “acts of parental alienation” is confusing:

4.1. The sentence “Acts of parental alienation … but most children don’t become alienated as a consequence” is inaccurate. By definition, parental alienation leads to, or is, alienation. If the children don’t become ‘alienated’ (in the sense used in this article), then it’s not parental alienation. This sentence demonstrates an unusual understanding of the subject matter;

4.2. “Acts of parental alienation may disrupt normal family relationships” is almost a tautology too; parental alienation, both in process and result, IS a disruption of normal family relationships and this is better expressed in the original text;

5. The citation for “but most children do not become alienated from a parent as a consequence” is from a 2005 reference to Parental Alienation Syndrome – a different term; this paper may be relevant to the History section, but is not appropriate for the lead. It’s been superseded by much more recent research and academic consensus. Similarly, I think Kopetski 1998 is too old to be cited in the lead, refers to PAS and could be removed. Was this something you added DrPax?

6. The phrase “and may lead to short-term or long-term estrangement of a child from one parent and other family members.” is more clearly expressed in the original. Having recognised in this definition that the term Parental Alienation is used by different authors to refer to the process OR the result of this particular phenomenon, the (unwarranted) loss of a pre-existing relationship is actually a part of the phenomenon of Parental Alienation; if this state of affairs becomes long-term then we can indeed refer to it as ‘estrangement’ – as in the original;

7. The sentence “Reports of experience with parental alienation during childhood correlate with forms of adult mental illness,[16][14], and emotional distress and mental health issues for the estranged parent” could well be developed in the body of the article. The original text more clearly states, with recent references in good journals and studies, that PA is a form of child abuse towards both parents as well as stating its mental health consequences, at least for children. An additional comment about the impact on estranged parent may warrant inclusion in the opening paragraph. Grammatically, though, this sentence has problems too: it doesn’t make sense to say “reports of experience with parental alienation during childhood correlate … with mental health issues for the estranged parent”. I think I understand what the author is trying to say, but the sentence doesn’t work and doesn’t improve upon the original;

8. The current phrase about psychological abuse is clearer than this new proposal; it’s not about whether this ‘should be classified’ as psychological abuse but rather about if it meets definitions of such abuse – which it does, as evidenced in the cited literature;

9. It’s not a mainstream view among experts to “question whether parental alienation is a useful construct” but this can certainly be raised in the body of the article. To link this with (or in opposition to) parental alienation being psychological abuse is not a helpful juxtaposition either; the two are separate issues. Several recent papers in respected journals also address the issues of criteria for assessment of PA and treatment; evidence isn't lacking on these issues and these references can and should be added to appropriate sections in the body of the article (rather than discussed in the lead). Skythrops (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The inappropriately reverted former opening is biased and replete with error, misrepresenting what the sources actually say, and it was and is inconsistent with the content of the article. Quibbles can be addressed through discussion, not by sitting on the sidelines while discussion is attempted then inappropriately reverting the content.

We can certainly discuss your semantic preferences once the changes, which were appropriate, properly sourced and factually correct, are restored. Arllaw (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@JeanAMercer1:, you have participated in the discussion of NPOV issues and the edits that were subsequently made to the article that were arbitrarily reverted without explanation. Would you agree that the now-deleted changes improved the article and its NPOV problems, while more accurately reflecting what reference materials actually say? Would you agree that the changes should be restored, per discussion and the proposals to which no objection were made, pending further discussion? Arllaw (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Arllaw, I agree that the changes should be restored. But candidly I don't see how any amount of discussion is going to satisfy the PA advocates-- that's why I wanted an extensive critique to balance some of the unsupported claims. JeanAMercer (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that if we start by participating in @Guy Macon:'s straw poll and, if necessary, proceed from there to a RfC to get input from the larger community, we may end up on the right track. Arllaw (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It would be really helpful if all editors could discuss proposed changes here. The current and largely long-standing text has been explicitly approved by multiple authors over the past four years (and, no doubt, by many others who've read it and not felt a need to make changes); I realise this is a bit harder to see given that Arllaw has, without editorial agreement, closed down a substantial proportion of this Talk page, and archived much more, before starting new sections about the same subject matter. Talk page discussion should not be controlled in this manner, nor by seeking to recruit others, as above, to a cause. Can we not have reasoned debate here about proposed changes to this paragraph, as Wikipedia asks of us? Certainly, the opening paragraph was not the subject of such contentious debate prior to Arllaw's arrival; since then, most of the Talk sections I initiated have suddenly been closed down and almost every single sentence I've written, disputed by this one author.

The way to make changes to this now-disputed text is to present the case for change here. I have presented detailed arguments in favour of the current text throughout this Talk page and explained why pretty much each sentence in the proposed new revision is problematic. These aren't "semantic" changes; some of them are pretty fundamental to the definition of the subject. By contrast, good evidence has not been presented as to why the new, proposed text is better.

Arllaw's primary argument in favour of the revisions appears, above, to be that the opening paragraph "makes assertions about PA that are not in the body of the article". The solution to this is to add material to the main article - let's do that - not to diminish the lead and prevent it from meeting Wikipedia's express aims (as it does at present, as detailed above). No attempt has been made to refute any of the legitimate points I've made. With respect to the particular sentence beginning "It is a distinctive form of psychological abuse ... that occurs almost exclusively ..." there are numerous references to support this statement and it's appropriate for it to be up-front in the lead, not least given Wikipedia's desire for the significance of a topic to be made clear within the first couple of sentences. The association with family break-up surely is rather self-evident too, isn't it? While bad-mouthing of another parent certainly occurs within intact relationships, parent-child estrangement and the complete loss of a relationship with a parent that's a prime feature of parental alienation cannot readily occur within intact families whereas it can when families break up. There were previous, extensive discussions about this phrase - now closed down, unfortunately - and one author suggested something along the lines that the phrase "occurs almost exclusively" could be changed to "is identified/recognised almost exclusively". This phrase is similarly supported by a number of mainstream references. Is this preferable?

I am not at all sure what "mainstream references" means in this context. PA is not a concept found in mainstream psychology at all but is used by a highly specialized group of people involved professionally in child custody cases. And, there is currently a good deal of professional opposition to the idea of PA as an identifiable problem-- see recent posting on the website of APSAC (American Professional Society on Abuse of Children). The only connection to the mainstream of psychology that I know of is that the man Craig Childress presented at the APA annual meeting last month-- and he included in his presentation the "work" of Lloyd DeMause, the psychohistory man of yore! (if you've read that stuff, you'll understand the exclamation mark). Anyway, none of the PA material is actually mainstream in the usual sense of the term, which is why it should not be presented as a done deal. Obviously the idea is out there, it's been heard in many courtrooms, there are a lot of nonprofessional adherents-- otherwise there would be no point in an article on the topic at all. But if I may speak candidly here, almost the same can be said for vaccines causing autism (maybe this actually has happened in a few cases). In both that and the PA case, giving readers the impression that these ideas are well-substantiated is irresponsible and potentially harmful to children and families.JeanAMercer (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Can we also please re-open the closed sections on this page, given that they are entirely relevant to ongoing debate and not subjects where debate has ended - as evidenced by this very discussion? Their closure was not done by agreement or consensus; in fact, it was done in spite of the views of one or more editors. Wikipedia has suggested that we could introduce an arbiter to prevent any one editor from closing down debate and Talk page sections without agreement in future. Can we agree to do this? Skythrops (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

As sad as it is, I would support Skythrops's call for an arbitrator if we can't agree to what has been proposed in the preceding couple of paragraphs. DrPax (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure why it's sad, DrPax. The sad thing will be if ordinary people consulting Wikipedia are misled by the article. Given the nature of Wikipedia, it's a very good thing that arbitrators are available.JeanAMercer (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

When editors make the choice not to respond to proposals for changes despite being given ample opportunity to do so, it is inaccurate to suggest that changes were made "without editorial agreement". Silence does not constitute an objection, nor is there a form of silent veto that prevents an article from being edited or corrected when no editor objects to proposed changes.

When content in the lead is wrong, it is not possible to fix the errors in the lead by adding content to the article. Adding incorrect content to an article to support an incorrect statement in the lead does not fix the problem -- it compounds the problem.

Dr. Mercer, it looks like you inadvertently added a paragraph of comment within a longer comment by Skythrops. As used, the term "mainstream references" does appear vague. I suggest instead considering Wikipedia's conception of reliable sources -- for medical/psychological content, WP:MEDRS, and for law, WP:RSLAW. Some of the advocacy pieces used in the article, such as blog posts, advocacy and self-help books, do not appear to meet the standard for reliability, even if (as with many other sources that aren't up to Wikipedia's standard) are arguably "mainstream". Arllaw (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears that two currently active editors wish to retain the current opening paragraph as is, while two wish to make a set of changes to this paragraph. At least two previous authors have explicitly supported the current text. So, this won't be resolved by a straw poll - at least, not in favour of the proposed changes. So, can someone simply explain which parts of the current text are wrong and why the proposed changes are right/better? Then we can move forward. I've provided details to the contrary above.

On the subject of parental alienation being psychological abuse, are there authors on this page who really believe that psychologically manipulating a child into rejecting a parent is not psychological abuse? That would be useful to know. This should really be quite a simple matter to resolve. This isn't about PA advocacy or skepticism; it's a simple matter of definition. Arllaw is correct to suggest the legal dictionary cited is not a primary source; however, this behavior meets the definitions of psychological abuse in other key publications (not least the DSM), while in some jurisdictions it not only meets the legal definition of child abuse, but that of family violence too. In some jurisdictions, this behavior is a felony. Further text and references to this effect could be added to the body of the article.

The objections to the type of edits Arllaw recently proposed can be found in very substantial, prior Talk page discussion. Wikipedia suggests withdrawing for a period when there is the appearance of edit-warring on a page; Arllaw's substantial and unilateral closing down of multiple sections discussing this very topic (without editorial agreement), among other things, gave that appearance, in my view. Keen to stick with content discussions here, if possible. Skythrops (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not helpful to make that sort of accusation against other editors, WP:PA, nor is it helpful to try to use Wikipedia's rules to try to prevent discussion and consensus as opposed to facilitating discussion and consensus, WP:GAME. Also, the problems with the current lead are patent and real, and no past discussion can override Wikipedia's quality and accuracy standards.

The purpose of the straw poll goes beyond the lead. If you choose not to participate, then you are choosing not to share your perspective and that means that you can expect that edits will occur in the wake of your silence. If you do not participate, you the future of this page and the type of references that it may include will likely be addressed through an RfC without your input.

You appear to be admitting that the references that are provided in the lead don't support the claim "It is a distinctive form of psychological abuse and family violence", so perhaps we can start by toning that down or reverting to the prior accurate lead. Duhaime's is a private project by a Canadian lawyer so, while it is nominally a legal dictionary it is questionable as a reliable source. If there is a jurisdiction in which P.A., as defined under whatever law you are alluding to, is a felony, that is neither substantiation that it's classified in that jurisdiction as "child abuse", and an even if we assume an exceptional situation in an undisclosed jurisdiction that would lend no support to the broad statement nor would it reconcile the present claim with the present position of the psychological community. There are many acts and omissions that parents take that are arguably abusive that do not legally constitute child abuse, and a push in that direction (i.e., "It's abusive, but not legally treated as child abuse") effectively confirms that the present language is entirely overblown. The lead, and for that matter Wikipedia at large, is not a place to advocate. WP:NOTADVOCACY Arllaw (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

View from an outsider

Clearly this is going nowhere, so I am trying another approach. See the following section for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Parental alienation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This caught my eye because it makes a bunch of what look like medical claims without any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources to back them up. I noticed the following: There appears to be several editors editing the page who pretty much edit nothing else. There is a large motivation to insert bias into the article by those who are currently accusing others of PA or being accused of same. The lead says things like "It is a distinctive form of psychological abuse and family violence" and only way down in the history do you discover that Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders considered and rejected PA as a diagnosis. Some of the sources are pretty clearly advocacy books pushing a particular POV instead of scientific papers on a psychological topic. The article really seems to cover only one of the following possibilities: Evil parent unfairly alienates child against good parent. Good parent alienates child against evil parent, and rightly so. No actual alienation, but one parent falsely accuses the other of alienation. Both parents are evil and both are alienating the child against the other parent. I can think of a couple of possible solutions: Rewrite the article so that it is about a legal argument instead of being about a medical diagnosis Treat it as a medical article and insist that all sources comply with WP:MEDRS and that all claims must be backed up with MEDRS-compliant sources. Note: I have no strong feelings and little interest in this specific topic other than wanting it, like all articles, to meet Wikipedia's standards without bias or inaccuracy. Comments? (Please keep them brief and to the point; we don't need more walls of text) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Here is some advice I got from the reliable sources noticeboard: "In my humble POV, if it is in the MEDRS territory, then remove all content not sourced by MEDRS-compliant sources. In case of legal argument, demand high quality sources and mercilessly remove all content sourced by mere advocacy books. And be prepared for quite nasty "content dispute"... Looking at the respective talkpage, there are epic battles even over minor details."   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/How to write a psychology article, it seems that for areas of psychology that do not overlap with medicine, the standard for references is softer than WP:MEDRS. If that's correct, perhaps the straw poll should include PA as a psychological subject, with medical content meeting WP:MEDRS standards. Arllaw (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Hi Guy Macon, thanks for your input, good to have an additional perspective. My thoughts (ad lib as one of the subject matter experts who only contributes to this article): Beyond the lead, much of the rest of the article does need considerable work to bring it in line with the lead. Including your succinct identification of the various possibilities and the fact that whilst the DSM does not explicitly include PA it does implicitly include it and there are several secondary sources detailing this, which need to be included. I agree with your possible solutions, however the problems is that PA is a psychological phenomenon which only really gets exposure during litigations, the two are not really separable (kind of like forensic science and criminal law). So I think that the solution would be a combination of both your suggested solutions: deal with it as a psychological diagnosis in a legal context using only reliable sources. Whilst I agree completely with the principles of MEDRS-compliant sources I am concerned that psychology, as a self-acknowledged “wobbly” or “soft” science, is not always so easily (and I use that term very loosely!) pinned down as medical science. It is common for multiple, accepted definitions and practices for a particular condition to co-exist in psychology. So I’m not entirely convinced that we can be quite as hard line about insisting on only secondary or tertiary sources but I certainly agree that we should use then in preference where they exist. DrPax (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, @Guy Macon:. If I am reading you correctly, I agree that the article presents PA as what appears to be a valid psychological diagnosis, but that PA does not presently reach that threshold. A number of the authors of the books and articles you mention have been criticized elsewhere, fairly or not, for having a financial interest in the debate through their legal consulting and therapeutic work on referral from courts. But if the advocacy materials are removed, and with them the assertions that become unsupported, then this article seems likely to end up skewing toward the skeptics. The present issue with the lead is not that the article needs to be changed to match it, but that it needs to be corrected to accord with the article. I agree with the suggestion that claims such as "It is a distinctive form of psychological abuse and family violence" represent advocacy, and should not be presented as fact. This article is essentially about a descriptive term, used primarily in legal circles, not a psychological diagnosis; but some psychologists are pushing for (and others against) a more formal recognition. From a psychological standpoint, the alienation of family members from each other falls under the penumbra of family estrangement, but in legal circles the specific allegation can be highly relevant within a court's best interest analysis when deciding child custody issues. The use of the term is thus similar to the notion of legal "insanity", a term that relates to an assessment of criminal responsibility to which a psychological diagnosis may be relevant but is not legally decisive, yet which does not have clinical validity. The only editor who has recently contributed to this article whom we can reasonably recognize as a subject matter expert is @JeanAMercer:, and I think her comments reflect a fair and diligent effort to try to address and resolve NPOV issues. Arllaw (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC) In relation to the lead, the source for the "distinctive form of psychological abuse and family violence" phraseology is an article (footnote 4) that, within its own title, contradicts that assertion -- "Parental alienating behaviors: An unacknowledged form of family violence". If the position were generally held, it would be acknowledged. Within the Wikipedia PA article (footnote 70), Edward Kruk, one of the co-authors of that original article wrote, "Parental Alienation as a Form of Emotional Child Abuse: Current State of Knowledge and Future Directions for Research", and on page 142 references the footnote 4 article in support of the assertion, "The arena of parental alienation is fraught with controversy, particularly regarding the question of whether parental alienation is a form of child abuse and family violence." As for the other sources, Duhaime's law dictionary (5) does mention PA as "abuse", but it's not an authoritative source nor does it support the broader assertion. The Baker article (6) speaks of self-reported consequences of perceived PA, but does not include language or assertions that support the claim made in the lead. Declaring that P.A. is abuse or violence is advocacy, not NPOV. Similarly, the claim about "the most common cause" is not supported by the sources cited, nor is it supported by the content of the article. Claims about the consequences of PA in the lead are overstated, albeit toned down a bit from past versions. Mention of controversy has been deleted from the lead, even though the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". MOS:LEAD Arllaw (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Straw poll This is an informal poll to gauge the consensus of the editors on this page. If we cannot come to an agreement I will post an RfC and we will see what the consensus of the community is. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Proposal 1: this article should be about a medical diagnosis with a section about legal issues. This implies that all citations outside of the legal section must comply with WP:MEDRS. Support: example support comment. Proposal 2: this article should be about a legal concept with a section about legal medical issues. This implies that all citations outside of the medical section must comply with WP:RSLAW. Support: (With all content within the medical section complying with WP:MEDRS). The primary context for claims of "parental alienation" claims is child custody litigation. At the same time, the status of parental alienation within the medical/psychological community as a possible diagnosis is relevant to this article, even if it primarily focuses on the legal side. Arllaw (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Support: example support comment. Proposal 3: this article should be split into two articles, one covering medical, one covering legal. Support: example support comment. Proposal 4: Other (explain exactly what you think we should do in your support comment). Support: Filter the sources first. There are 107 sources in the article with duplicities and possible COIs. I suggest filtering the sources first so we can get an idea of whether the subject falls more into the realm of legal arguments or WP:MEDRS (also see here). François Robere (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Support: example support comment. In support of proposal 4: a. PA is not a medical diagnosis. It may appear to be one because of its advocates' assertions that denigration of an ex-spouse to or in front of a child of the marriage is a form of child abuse, and child abuse is often associated with at least short-term mood or cognitive problems, which might be considered as "medical" in this context. However, it seems clear that PA advocates do not actually think that such behavior is child abuse, as in spite of the fact that most of them are mandatory reporters they do not report to child protective services. b. PA is not a legal concept either. Given the claim (above) that alienating behavior is child abuse, PA has been folded into the legal concept of abuse and the idea that if abuse by a parent is demonstrated, that parent loses rights to custody. (Of course, parents who have harmed children severely get custody all the time, on the argument that they didn't mean to do it or that they're taking anger management classes.) To argue on the basis of evidence that alienating behavior is child abuse, we would need to show that such behavior, when followed by the child's rejection of one parent, is followed by some form of psychological injury to the child. This has not been done, and for good reason, as it would be very difficult to do. Thus, the use of the PA concept in law is not because it is a separate legal concept, but because it has worked for attorneys to conflate it with child abuse and to state that it has occurred, even without evidence of the parent's actions, and thereby to get orders for custody change as desired by the nonpreferred parent. c. i would propose a single article that presents the PA concept as an attempt to explain a child's rejection of one parent and preference for the other. This could follow along the existing lines but would require much clarification of the evidence for and against the PA hypothesis. I don't think it will be possible to reach a form which is acceptable to both advocates and skeptics. Is there any other article that follows that model? (I edited years ago but have not been back for a while and am really not clear about what has happened in similar cases.) JeanAMercer (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC) People might want to look at the article on Dissociative Identity Disorder. Although there is still a certain amount of snarling on the talk page, those editors seem to have presented the views of both believers and nonbelievers. A naive reader could not leave that article thinking there is only one point of view, whereas currently I think such a person could read this PA article and see only one side... Years ago I wrote a piece for the old Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice examining Wikipedia articles on mental health issues and showing the enormous disagreements associated with them. The DID folks seems to have done a lot better job than people used to manage, and I hope we can do the same for PA.JeanAMercer (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Further reading section

The further reading section is not balanced and as presented does not seem particularly helpful. Should it be maintained, with existing materials reviewed and new resources added for balance, or should it be removed? Arllaw (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will remove the section. Should that happen, it could of course be restored later in a more balanced form. Arllaw (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears that everyone else who was in this battle has decided to not reply to your talk page comments and to not revert your edits. Maybe they are all busy, or maybe they have given up the fight, or it may be that they are waiting for my threatened edits so that they can fight me instead of you. I advise continuing your edits and continuing to post "If there is no objection" comments. Also, if you feel rushed I will be happy to make that 72 hour deadline something like two weeks or a month. Clearly something one of us is doing has stopped the constant fighting. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. I certainly hope that we are seeing interest in working productively, not a proverbial calm before the storm. I don't feel rushed, but by the same token those who want certain content preserved within the article are best served from either joining the effort before the deadline or in association with a request for more time. Arllaw (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to see other straw poll responses but I guess there aren't any.JeanAMercer (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Revisiting the Lead

The current lead of the article is as follows:

Parental alienation is the process and the result of psychological manipulation of a child into showing unwarranted fear, disrespect or hostility towards a parent, relative or others. It is a distinctive form of psychological abuse and family violence, towards both the child and the rejected family members, that occurs almost exclusively in association with family separation or divorce, particularly where legal action is involved. The most common cause is one parent wishing to exclude the other parent from the life of their child, though family members or friends, as well as professionals involved with the family (including psychologists, lawyers and judges), may contribute to the process.

Parental alienation often leads to the long-term, or even lifelong, estrangement of a child from one parent and other family members and, as a significant adverse childhood experience and form of childhood trauma, results in significantly increased lifetime risks of both mental and physical illness.

References

This introduction is problematic for a number of reasons.

Reference 1 initially parental alienation as,

Parental alienation (PA) is a serious mental condition that affects hundreds of thousands of children and families in the United States and comparable numbers in other countries.... PA is a mental condition in which a child -- usually one whose parents are engaged in a high-conflict separation or divorce -- allies himself or herself strongly with an alienating parent and rejects a relationship with the "target" parent without legitimate justification.

The Bernet encyclopedia reference (2) defines PA as follows,

Parental alienation is a mental condition in which a child—usually one whose parents are engaged in a high‐conflict separation or divorce—allies himself or herself strongly with one parent (the preferred parent) and rejects a relationship with the other parent (the alienated parent) without legitimate justification."

Both of these definitions are problematic in that in declaring PA to be a "mental condition" they advocate a position that has not been accepted by the larger psychological community. But a greater issue is that neither definition supports the language of the definition provided in the lead.

The claim that "It is a distinctive form of psychological abuse and family violence" is not supported by the references provided (3, 5); instead the authors of those articles advocate for PA to be recognized as abuse. The suggestion that this is recognized as abuse "towards both the child and the rejected family members" is not supported by the references provided (5, 6, 7). Reay (5) advocates for PA to be recognized as child psychological abuse; that is, as abuse of the child, but not of other family members. Similarly, Baker (5) argues that "parents who exhibit parental alienation strategies can be considered as psychologically maltreating their children", but not of other family members. The Poustie artilce (7) reports that parents who describe themselves as having experienced PA at the hands of the other parent regard PA as a form of abuse, and argues that such a position is not unreasonable, but does not assert that to be a consensus view. Harman (8) reflects the lack of uniformity of support for this opinion, "Many have argued that the impact these behaviors have on children, termed parental alienation, is a form of child abuse...", again making no similar suggestion about other family members.

The claim that PA "occurs almost exclusively in association with family separation or divorce, particularly where legal action is involved", does not appear to be supported by Baker's article (8), which instead notes that alienating behaviors (not all of which rise to the level of PA) are commonplace in divorce, but in the associated survey participants were not asked to state whether or not their parents were divorced:

Second, respondents were not asked to indicate whether their parents had divorced. Presumably the rates of parental alienation in this subsample would be even higher.

It may be that other research provides support for that assumption, and the assumption is not unreasonable, but Harman's article should not be cited in support of an assertion it does not make.

The claim, "The most common cause is one parent wishing to exclude the other parent from the life of their child", does not appear to be supported by the Warshak article (9), and no page reference is provided that might help pinpoint a relevant passage. The article on the experiences of family attorneys (10) addresses how the custody litigation process may affect children, but does not even mention parental alienation.

The claim, "Parental alienation often leads to the long-term, or even lifelong, estrangement of a child from one parent and other family members", is not supported by the cited article, (11), which speaks of possible effects that may last a lifetime but I have found no such assertion about estrangement within the article. The claim "as a significant adverse childhood experience and form of childhood trauma, results in significantly increased lifetime risks of both mental and physical illness" is partially supported by the Ben-Ami article (11) in relation to possible lasting mental health consequences, but not the claim of physical illness. The Verrocchio article (12) finds a correlation between reported PA and psychological maltreatment, but makes no finding in relation to physical illness. I don't find that the Garber article (13) supports either point.

I think it would be a good idea to revise the lead, consistent with @JeanAMercer:'s suggestion that Dissociative identity disorder be used as a model. While some past comments suggest a strong attachment to the claims made in the lead, they are inconsistent with the article body and with the sources referenced within the lead, and I don't believe that there is any basis for maintaining the lead in its present form. Arllaw (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not support these proposed changes. My arguments have been made in some detail above. Unfortunately, the author of this section Arllaw has closed down these discussions and prevented ongoing discussion there, instead opening this and other new sections that do not show the lengthy and detailed prior discussions. To avoid repetition by me or WP:WALLOFTEXT concerns, please see these closed sections and other discussion above for my evidence-based arguments. I can provide a further, detailed refutation of each of the points made above in this section if appropriate or requested. Skythrops (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This section proposed no specific changes. It documented very serious problems with the current lead, and proposed bringing the lead up to Wikipedia standard. The serious issues with the present lead do not appear to be either in dispute or disputable. If you agree that the lead cannot be sustained because of its many defects, but are making a stylistic objection to emulating the lead from Dissociative identity disorder, perhaps you could give us an example of a style you would prefer. Arllaw (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The Edward Kruk article, Parental Alienation as a Form of Emotional Child Abuse, has been added to the lead as a reference with the note, "Added reference to lead regarding PA and Abuse". That article states at page 142, "The arena of parental alienation is fraught with controversy, particularly regarding the question of whether parental alienation is a form of child abuse and family violence". So again we have a conflict between the claim made in the lead and what the reference actually states.

If there are reliable sources that support the claims made in the lead, they should be added to the lead and associated content within the article. If not, then there remains every reason to revise and correct the lead. Arllaw (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

In this section, Arllaw has raised concerns primarily about whether the citations used in the opening paragraph correspond with the text; these do not amount to "very serious problems with the current lead". While many of the citations later in the article certainly don't match the text, I don't agree that this is generally the case for the opening paragraph. In all events, the appropriate solution to this would be to remove a citation or request additional citations (though I note Martinkogk's earlier comments re minimizing citations in the opening para). I believe this is precisely what Guy Macon is currently doing. It is absolutely not consistent with prior discussion on this page to suggest that "the serious issues with the present lead do not appear to be either in dispute or disputable"; multiple authors have accepted/approved the current opening paragraph and I've provided extensive details and evidence in support of it. It's particularly unfortunate, under the circumstances, that Arllaw has, unilaterally and without editorial agreement, closed/removed these discussions while opening this new section about the same subject matter.

With respect to style, there's extensive discussion about style/layout and overall content above (again, in sections unfortunately closed/removed/archived by Arllaw); I refer, for example, to my own long-standing proposals for the style/layout. With respect to specific content, the opening paragraph appropriately and succinctly summarises the fact that the term 'parental alienation' is defined in different ways by different authors; I'd expanded upon this in the body of the article in text deleted by Arllaw. As just one further example, again to avoid repetition or WP:WALLOFTEXT concerns, can we establish: are there editors on this page who actually don't believe that psychologically manipulating a child into unwarranted rejection of a parent is psychological abuse? If so, it would be really useful if you could state that here. Otherwise, the existing text about this is supported by multiple citations from reliable sources, not to mention legal definitions in a number of countries. Given the limitations of adding too many citations to the opening paragraph, it would be good to expand on this in the body of the article.

With respect to consistency, I'm baffled why Arllaw's latest edit was on the grounds that "this article is about parental alienation, not the hypothesis of a "parental alienation syndrome"' (with which I'd essentially agree) when this same author has made multiple text reversions to keep whole paragraphs - and even a subject title - about "parental alienation syndrome" in this article. I agree with the latest edit and comment: PAS doesn't belong here, other than as a simple, historical reference (which I've made) to the fact that the term PA is derived from it (though, I note, even this was refuted by Arllaw).

I request that the Talk page sections relevant to current discussions be re-opened and re-instated and that such sections should only be closed, removed or archived by agreement. Can we agree on this? Skythrops (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, perhaps you have some suggestions for how to address these issues constructively, and to avoid extensive debate over even minor changes. Would it make sense to seek a RfC in relation to the lead at this juncture, or perhaps after your clean-up has been completed? Arllaw (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

As Skythrops points out the major frustration is that sections of this article will be edited and then reverted with extensive reasons being provided for the revision, which are not addressed and then then similar edits are again conducted a short period of time later. Using the lead as an example, this has occurred at least three time in past 8 months (the extensive history in the archived/closed talk pages to attests to this!). This is time-wasting and adds nothing to the article. It is my suggestion that Guy Macon conducts the proposed “chainsaw massacre” and that the page is then WP:FULL. Further edits are then only approved once consensus is reached and after a reasonable period of time has elapsed, and that discussions that have already been previously resolved are not rehashed unless there is actual new material to support an intelligent discussion. Obviously someone with Guy Macon's NPOV would be ideal to administer this. DrPax (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)