Talk:Parental alienation syndrome/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Fighting rhetoric with rhetoric

This is the proposed edit:

The following half of a sentence near the top of the section labeled Scientific Status:

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

should be either eliminated or amended to

Psychology Professor Robert Emery states that PAS has been described as a hypothesis that has not met the burden of proof required to demonstrate that it is true.

and placed before or after the sentence by Faller who states that PAS is pseudoscience. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Discussion of rhetoric

The statement sourced by Emery about "proof that it is true" must be attributed and demoted. It is unscientific because "proof that it is true" is not the criteria used for evaluating and accepting syndromes. Warshak fairly represents the criteria used for evaluating and accepting syndromes. "Proof that it is true" is a farcical criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome. Please see the paragraph titled "Conceptualizing PAS" from the Warshak source: [1]

Emery "admits" that he is "fighting rhetoric with rhetoric" in one of his notes in the Family Court Review source. If the article is to be neutral then it must not present "fighting rhetoric with rhetoric" as unattributed fact, when the statement is without doubt untrue. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

The two sources for Emery's statement about science are the Family Court Review and Psychological Science in the Public Interest. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Once again, there seems a confusion here; what you consider to be "unscientific", "farcical" or "without doubt untrue" is not a factor in our decision making. We can't go about doing original research by contrasting Warshak's opinion of how a syndrome is defined (not actually the last word in authority on this issue, as I have pointed out before[2]), with Emery's point about how the syndrome lacks evidence of existence. And in fact, they don't really disagree in at a fundamental level. Warshak's first point is that proof is required that "the phenomenon exists". Emery, and many, many others concur that those pro-PAS have failed to prove this point.[3][4] [5][6][7] etc etc. I would support a revision of this sentence to broaden the scope and citing, because it is a very important point. --Slp1 (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Warshak's first point is that proof is required that "the phenomenon exists". Emery, and many, many others concur that those pro-PAS have failed to prove this point."

In my view, this second statement is incorrect. Although some may state that PAS does not exist similar to the way that Emery states that PAS has not met the burden of proof that it is true, these are merely rhetorical claims since "existence" in this sense is based on acceptance/rejection and agreement/disagreement of mental health professionals. Emery and others including Drozd, do not state that children do not display these 8 symptoms. They do not state that the "phenomenon of PAS" does not exist.

It is not original research to provide my comments on this talk page: when it comes to syndromes, claims about existence/nonexistence and proof are rhetoric and unscientific. In addition, Emery himself "admits" that he is "fighting rhetoric with rhetoric" in the Family Court Review article.

It is understandable that the rhetorical claims may cause confusion, which is all the more reason that the communication about the existence of the phenomena be made clear in the article. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

It is quite unreasonable to expect the specific level of negative evidence requested by the comments"They do not state that the "phenomenon of PAS" does not exist" and they "do not state that children do not display these 8 symptoms". The lack of a negative does not imply a positive. Most scholars agree that that PAS (as described by Gardner, including its 8 symptoms) lacks evidence of existence; only a third of clinicians think it should be recognized as a syndrome; most do agree, however, that some children become alienated from a divorcing parent, but with different presentations and causative factors. All of this is already included in the article. These attempts to pick of holes in the vast preponderance of the scientific literature in order to increase the status of an unaccepted theory cannot continue.--Slp1 (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Most scholars agree that that PAS (as described by Gardner, including its 8 symptoms) lacks evidence of existence; only a third of clinicians think it should be recognized as a syndrome; "

"Existence" is a proper term with respect to the phenomenon (the existence of the 8 symptoms in children), but "existence" is an improper and unscientific term with respect to the syndrome itself. The following is a proper and accurate sentence: Most scholars agree that PAS (as described by Gardner, including its 8 symptoms) lacks evidence of existence in order to evaluate whether or not it should be accepted. The criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome is sourced by Warshak's article in the American Journal of Forensic Psychology. The idea that a syndrome must be "proven to be true" is sourced to Emery who qualified his statements. Emery "admits" that he is "fighting rhetoric with rhetoric." The source for Emery's scientific view is the Family Court Review, which should not be used as a primary source for scientific views. The other source for Emery's view, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, should not be used as a primary source for scientific views either.

"Only a third of clinicians think it should be recognized as a syndrome " provides no support for the idea that "most scholars agree that PAS (as described by Gardner, including its 8 symptoms) lacks evidence of existence." There is no source that states that the existence of the 8 symptoms in children is "a point of contention in the social science literature." Michael H 34 (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

What's the support for the idea that most scholars agree? I know that it can't be Bernet, 2009, because we've been over that before - Bernet is talking about something other than PAS, and it is only with unacceptable original research that the two can be linked. Is the other source the 8 year old Warshak article? Where exactly does it say that it is not a source of contention in the article itself? I've tried reading through it and haven't come across that section yet.

"Also note that an assertion by either source can't really contradict a direct study on the acceptability of PAS among mental health and legal scholars. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are asserting that the phenomenon of PAD is "something other than" the phenomenon of PAS even though they are based on the same eight symptoms, then I disagree with you. In addition, the Warshak source is clear that such children exist is not a point of contention in the social science literature. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Yes, where is all the evidence that scholars agree that the 8 symptoms appear? I haven't seen anything to suggest this at all. The furthest the articles go is to suggest that some children do become alienated from a parent at times. And per the syndromehood-thing please note that Walker et al 2004,[8] in a section entitled "Does PAS Meet the DSM Criteria for a Syndrome?" says "Although suggested by some proponents, including Gardner, the idea that PAS should be accepted in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000) has been met with overt skepticism both for its lack of empiricism and its inability to meet the basic DSM definition of a syndrome. The DSM-IV-TR defines a syndrome as such: “A grouping of signs and symptoms, based on their frequent co-occurrence, that may suggest a common underlying pathogenesis course, familial pattern, or treatment selection” (p. 828)" Note that the DSM itself is a much better source than Warshaw of what the criteria for syndromehood is. Walker et al go on to state that PAS fails because

• Gardner's symptoms do not meet the DSM criteria of symptoms: symptoms are reported by the affected individual, not observed by the clinician as PAS "symptoms" are.
• There is no clear, agreed-upon causation of PAS and no clear course or treatment as required by the definition.

Kelly and Johnson (2001) concur PAS does not meet the qualification to be considered a syndrome because it lacks “common underlying pathogenesis, course, familial pattern, or treatment selection”; this is confirmed by more general (and highly independent) descriptions of how a syndrome is defined that I have listed above.--Slp1 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"There is no clear, agreed-upon causation of PAS and no clear course or treatment as required by the definition."

Although you imply that what you what you wrote above contradicts what Warshak wrote, it supports what Warshak wrote and contradicts what Emery wrote. The statement sourced by Emery must be removed, or at least demoted and given attribution. Agreement (what is agreed-upon) is the criteria for acceptance of a syndrome not "proof that it is true", which is unscientific rhetoric. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Huh? Syndromes are just hypothetical syndromes until empirical evidence about their validity (in multiple areas, including causation, course, etc etc) emerge and they become accepted. Even those who support PAS agree that this kind of empirical evidence is lacking. --Slp1 (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you were just guessing, offhand, what proportion of proper reliable sources do you think would agree that this statement is true? If you were trying to produce a list of every possible RS that supports a statement along these lines, how many footnotes might you be able to list after this sentence? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you just clarify exactly what you are referring to by "this statement"? There are so many statements about!--Slp1 (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for dropping out of the conversation for several days. The statement in question is "PAS has been described as a hypothesis that has not met the burden of proof required to demonstrate that it is true". What I want to know is this: is (1) calling PAS a hypothesis and (2) saying that it has not met the usual burden of proof just one person's opinion? Does practically everyone think (1) and (2)? If you interviewed a large number of world-renowned experts in this general field, what percentage of them would agree or disagree with (1) and (2)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. I have spent a rather (too?!!) lengthy period trawling through as many of the scholarly refs as possible to properly answer your question; luckily I was able to steal a very helpful prior listing from WLU and have expanded it here. My analysis is that there are a very large number of references besides Emery that directly support that PAS is only a hypothesis that has as yet not been "proven true by scientific research". (Emery's exact words). These include strong supporters of PAS who nevertheless admit that it is lacking empirical data to support it. --Slp1 (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael H 34, would you agree with this? Do you think that, by and large, most experts in this general field would say that PAS is (at this time) an unproven hypothesis? (This group would include those that say it's an extremely interesting and very promising unproven hypothesis, those that say that it's an utterly worthless unproven hypothesis, and every step in between those two extremes.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, without question, proof is NOT the criteria for evaluating a syndrome. Agreement ("what is agreed-upon" was included in the material quoted by Slp1) is the criteria for acceptance of a syndrome. "Unproven hypothesis" and "proof that it is true" are unacceptable. These statements are unscientific.

In a poll, mental health professionals stated that more data is needed. This data would be used to evaluate whether or not the proposed syndrome should be accepted as a syndrome. The data could not possibly be used to prove whether or not the syndrome is "true." Michael H 34 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

The following quote from Kelly and Johnston was provided by Slp1:

"There is no clear, agreed-upon causation of PAS and no clear course or treatment as required by the definition."

What is agreed upon is the criteria for evaluating a syndrome, not what is proven to be true. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael, the "criteria for evaluating a syndrome" might be appropriate in Syndrome, just like information about the usual tests used to evaluate drugs might be appropriate in Medication.

The criteria for evaluating (any old) syndrome is not appropriate in articles (e.g., this one) about a particular syndrome -- just like you wouldn't summarize Drug development in each one of the several thousands of articles about particular medications. It's an issue of staying on topic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Since PAS is not considered a syndrome by the appropriate bodies who get to decide these things, and since the articles pushing for such a classification are the minority, it's undue weight to extensively discuss the idea; it's coatracking to discuss the process of deciding if something is a syndrome on this page; and it's original research to try to make the judgement ourselves. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Statement sourced by Emery - First Attempt

The following statement is included in the article and sourced by Emery:

PAS has been described as a hypothesis that has not met the burden of proof required to demonstrate that it is true [[9]][[10]]

(1) The statement includes a scientific view that conflicts with the criteria for acceptance of a syndrome as sourced by Warshak: acceptance that (1) the phenomena exists (2) that the phenomena is a disturbance and (3) that the description of the phenomena is useful and not better described by some other description.

(2) This scientific view is not included in a mainstream scientific journal and cannot be relied upon.

(3) The author includes a footnote in the article from the Family Court Review in which he "admits" that he is "fighting rhetoric with rhetoric."

For more information about this issue, please see the talk page above.

Thank you for your comments, Michael H 34 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

• What's the question? Michael, it would be helpful to respondents if you included a specific question, instead of your own comments.
  I assume that you want them to oppose the inclusion of this perfectly accurate mainstream opinion of PAS because it doesn't happen to line up with your personal point of view. I also assume that you don't want them to notice that Warshak (your preferred source) is one of exactly two researchers on the planet that thinks PAS should be accepted as a valid psychological syndrome, that the reliable sources guideline does not limit Wikipedia's contents solely to peer-reviewed journal articles, and that you have selectively quoted the "fighting rhetoric with rhetoric" line to mislead editors, since the full passage would show that Emery says he's "fighting rhetoric with rhetoric" because there's absolutely no data to support PAS, and thus rejecting PAS doesn't require rejecting anything even remotely scientific. But my assumptions might be wrong, and I'm sure that the editors would be happy to have a specific question to answer. Would you please add a question to this RfC? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Should the [above bolded] statement be deleted or should it be moved lower in the section labeled scientific status and given attribution or should it be removed from the section labeled Scientific Status to another section of the article and given attribution? Michael H 34 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34 (modified by Slp1 for clarity)

To be fair to Michael and PAS, there's a few more than 2 researchers who argue for PAS and want it accepted as a syndrome. But there's also many more researchers than just Emery that state there there is no evidence for this hypothetical syndrome. Too whit:

• Dallam, SJ (1999) "unproven theory"
• Johnston and Kelly(2004) "no convincing evidence" "without adequate empirical evidence"
• Wood (1994) "unproved hypothesis"
• Ragland and Fields (2003) "an untested theory"
• Jaffe et al (2002) "unsubstantiated theory"
• Hoult, JA (2006) "a hypothetical “proposed syndrome” without supporting empirical evidence" ... “unsupported speculation rather than scientific knowledge"
• Messer and Gould (2009) "little, if any, research establishing the empirical foundation for the existence of PAS". "There is no underlying theory of science" and there are more

I'm not sure why Michael would cast aspersions at two peer-reviewed, multiply indexed journals such as the Psychological Science in the Public Interest and the Family Court Review, published by Wiley, when his main source, Warshak, is published by a journal with no named editorial board? --Slp1 (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Johnston and Kelly's statements and Hoult's statements are consistent with the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome. The others are not. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

No, they're not. Unless Slp1 is misquoting, you're clearly wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't even understand the relevance of MH34's comment. We are not collecting opinions about the acceptance of syndromes; we are discussing whether it is fair to say that a significant chunk of the literature have stated that PAS is unproven hypothesis. I think it's very clear that they have. Good grief- even supporters such as Baker (2007) say "the legal system is in need of evidence of the validity of the construct of PAS".--Slp1 (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement by Amy Baker is consistent with the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome. It is not surprising to me that of the statements listed by Slp1 in this section, Johnston and Kelly were included among those whose statements were consistent with the criteria for acceptance of a syndrome. Kelly and Johnston used the words "agreed upon" in a quote provided earlier on this page by Slp1. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

This is still irrelevant for the purposes of this RFC; however I will just clarify that this original research is 100% wrong about Johnston and Kelly (2004), who specifically state "we reject Gardner’s proposal that PAS should be granted the status of a diagnostic syndrome...PAS does not meet the American Psychiatric Association’s (1994) criteria for a syndrome..".--Slp1 (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me to explain. The request for comment is about removing the misleading information concerning the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome as sourced by Emery. I've asserted that syndromes are not "proven to be true." I did not state that Johnston and Kelly support PAS. I know quite well that they do not. I did state that Johnston and Kelly used the words "agreed upon" and noted that this statement is consistent with the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome as sourced by Warshak. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

It's not very surprising that some scholars in this area would use words like unproven, which are inconsistent with the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Rather than bickering, let's sit back and let the poor bastard willing to review the page contents make their assessment. What seems quite clear to Slp1 and myself will either jump out, or it will not. They are also able to ask questions, seek clarification, and request sources. So, let's let them do so and leave it until then. I don't want to have to write out another pointless 100K set of comments if I don't have to, we're not getting anywhere as is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We'll see if someone comments. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Removing the NPOV tag

Can we remove the NPOV tag? They are meant to be there for a short time, this has been there a month. No progress has been made and I don't think any will be made - I don't feel that there is any merit to MH34's arguments, which are essentially based on two articles that are not well supported in the literature and frequently contradict the statements made in numerous other reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur and support the removal of the tag. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

WLU's characterization of the issues is incomplete and inaccurate. I urge commenters to read the talk page above. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael, what's the practical purpose of keeping the tag on the article at this point? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, the tag alerts the reader to issues about the neutrality of the article. WhatamIdoing, please provide your comments on the issues I have raised above. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Kinda what I figured. That is not an acceptable reason to slap a POV tag on an article. The docs for that template clearly state, "This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article." WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please link to that page? I am reading Wikipedia:TAGGING, which states, "Tagging makes it easier for people who have expertise or interest in a particular area to home in on things they can work on, it warns readers about rough patches (so they don't think a disputed passage is authoritative), and it encourages more passers-by to pitch in." [Emphasis mine.] Blackworm (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's in the docs on the template, so you'll find it at Template:POV (third bullet, I think).

Using some kinds of tags that way is apparently fine with many editors (e.g., {{unref}} is a reasonable "warning"); using this tag is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have often stated that I believe that while tags should not be used as a badge of shame (i.e., used without substantial, reasonable argument for changes, and the proposal of specific changes), it doesn't seem to be the case here as the person putting the tag up is indeed discussing proposed changes. I believe that all tags ultimately serve to inform the reader (who is a current or potential editor) that some material is disputed, and I'd rather err on the side of informing the reader of a reasonable dispute than hiding the reader from that dispute. If editors on either side find themselves editwarring the tag instead of discussing the proposed changes, perhaps it's indeed a sign that a dispute exists, and the tag should remain pending some form of WP:Dispute resolution. See WP:NPOV dispute, for example. Good luck. Blackworm (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I also favor resolution of the perceived problems, although that process will have to wait until Michael H 34 is no longer blocked for edit warring.

Generally, I leave such tags alone, unless they're clearly stale. In this case, the actual stated aim of placing the tag is to "alert[] the reader to issues about the neutrality of the article" -- a clearly inappropriate use. Additionally, I believe that the presence or absence of the tag will, itself, have no bearing on the resolution of the dispute. (You'll note that I asked Michael what practical purpose it was serving.)

Finally, although I haven't yet commented above, I am no longer convinced that it is possible to simultaneously (1) comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV, as determined by any group of randomly selected editors, and (2) produce an article that Michael thinks fairly represents his strongly held personal opinions. The conflict here arises because mainstream experts have rejected an idea that Michael holds dear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Undent. Blackworm, if you review the talk page's history, which is a lengthy process, you'll see that efforts have been made to remove the tag and resolve the issues. The problem in my mind is that MH34 does not like the way the issues are resolved, yet has no other support for his actions and edit wars to keep the NPOV tag on. If the talk page has been dead for five days waiting for a response from the only individual who still has an issue, I'm quite comfortable removing the tag. There has been massive, lengthy, circuitous discussion on the talk page about this; it comes down to two references, one old, one problematic. MH34 believes they are sufficient to indicate the concept is taken seriously by at least some legal and social science scholars, when the preponderance of opinions seem to be that it is not the case. The relevant articles are Warshak, 2001, and Bernet, 2008. Warshak is old, and many newer, more current references converge that the concept has no real traction in serious circles. Bernet is problematic because he's talking about a related concept he developed that is not parental alienation syndrome; this concept has even less support than PAS, and google scholar shows only two citations (both are new, only one is in a journal of unknown impact - in French. Still usable, but less accessible). It seems a classic case of undue weight - one can find a minority of scholars who discuss the idea positively, but the majority state that it's still a new concept, still unproven, still dubious, and still not gaining traction many years after the primary theorist's death.

If you're just commenting on the use of tags and not interested in the topic itself, then feel free to ignore my comments; I will only say that TAGGING is an essay, while {{POV}} is the actual usage page which would take precedence in my mind, and clearly states it's not a badge of shame. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 05:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Using some kinds of tags that way is apparently fine with many editors (e.g., {{unref}} is a reasonable "warning"); using this tag is not."

WhatamIdoing, please add the appropriate tag until you have resolved the issues.

WLU, what author states that PAS is "unproven" besides Emery, who also "admitted" that he is "fighting rhetoric with rhetoric?" Michael H 34 (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

WLU, do you agree that PAD is based on the same 8 symptoms as PAS, and that the differences between the two are (1) PAD includes a time requirement, (2) PAD requires a finding that the patient is sufficiently disturbed, and (3) PAD formalizes the evaluation of the severity of the disturbance requiring 4 of the symptoms to be displayed?

Does everyone agree that Warshak and Bernet state that there is acceptance that the 8 symptoms included in a potential diagnosis of PAS or PAD (if the syndrome/disorder were accepted) exist in some children? Michael H 34 (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

WAID does not get to decide if she has resolved the issue. That's a general agreement and not the responsibility of a single person. Authors who claim PAS is unproven include Jaffe, Lemon & Poisson (2002); Sparta & Koocher (2006); Ackerman (2001); Faller (1998); and pretty much anything brought up here. What I think about PAD doesn't matter, that's calling for original research; placing a lot of emphasis on Bernet is undue weight. What Warshak and Bernet say matters less than what the whole body of scholars says, because placing too much emphasis on two authors and two papers is again undue weight. Warshak and Bernet agreeing is essentially a circle-jerk unless many other scholars also agree. They don't. Them saying that there is acceptance is very, very far from there being actual acceptance. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And I clarify, for the third or fourth time, that I have not made any assertion about the resolution of the bias claims. I only say that the stated purpose of the tag explicitly violates the stated norms for using the tag, and therefore have removed it as not complying with the permitted uses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you are arguing that Warshak and Bernet's views are to be excluded because of an absence of published supporting opinion, rather than an overwhelming opposition to their views. If so, that doesn't sound like a valid reason to omit the material. I completely agree with you when you say: "Them saying that there is acceptance is very, very far from there being actual acceptance." But that is easily overcome by the guidance we find in policy and guideline -- WP:NPOV clearly states that we don't assert views, we assert that others have those views. Attribution is a neutral way to resolve this kind of issue, and it works hand in hand with WP:V which requires us to make statements the vast majority would agree on. Everyone here agrees with "Warshak and Bernet state ..." if we make an appropriate summary of the source, preferably staying very close to the language used in the source. If the dispute is over weight, and one can show that the "whole body of scholars" (I suppose meaning all other scholars) hold views contrary to their views, then the material should probably not be included at all or at best given a very brief reference. If, however, the whole body of other scholars simply abstain from vocally supporting it, and it isn't clear that they are in opposition, a more expanded coverage of their views seems appropriate. Blackworm (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that there is NO source that contradicts Warshak except for Emery, who "admitted" that he is "fighting rhetoric with rhetoric." Please also understand that no source contradicts Bernet. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

WLU: "What Warshak and Bernet say matters less than what the whole body of scholars says, because placing too much emphasis on two authors and two papers is again undue weight. Warshak and Bernet agreeing is essentially a circle-jerk unless many other scholars also agree. They don't."

WLU is once again conflating the acceptance of the syndrome with the acceptance of the existence of the symptoms which the syndrome are intended to describe. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Outdent: This is the proposed edit:

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

I ask the Wikipedia community does this proposed edit state that PAS is accepted as a syndrome? Michael H 34 (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Blackworm - not an exclusion - the articles are already used on the page, several times each (it's worth looking into the two specific citations and how they are used - I can e-mail them to you if you are interested), and I've never attempted to remove them. I'm arguing that it is undue weight to rewrite the page with their opinion as the majority opinion or to put them on equal footing with the citations that support the general lack of acceptance of PAS. It's not that there is overwhelming opposition to their view, it's that their view is not the majority, it is a distinct minority. Not so tiny that it should be excluded, but minority enough that skepticism should be the norm and the page should emphasize and be framed in terms of the failure to accept PAS as a real diagnosis or clinical entity despite over 20 years of publications. The most important part of NPOV in my opinion, for this page, on this issue and with these sources, is undue weight. It's not like a discussion of creationism on the evolution or biology page, or flat earth on geography (i.e. there shouldn't be any). It's more like the thiomersal controversy on autism, or inheritance of acquired characters on evolution (once serious theories that are not considered serious theories anymore). The majority body of scholars don't consider it a serious and substantive theory, though there was merit in discussing it.

I would suggest, if you're really interested in evaluating the substance of the matter, actually checking into the sources - many are google book links, which are readily accessible (the page numbers are linked in the citation templates, if available). Also consider the context of the sources themselves - Bernet is in the American Journal of Family Therapy (see the discussion here) and has received only two citations - in addition to not directly addressing parental alienation syndrome (it's about parental alienation disorder). Warshak is from 2001, eight years old, and is cited 30 times. Faller, a critical publication, is cited 43 times (though it's older and bibliometrics are a naive way of citing a publication). Also look into Bow, Gould and Flens, 2009, which explicitly researches the importance of PAS within social scientists, and comes up with the opinion (explicitly) that PAS is not supported by most scholars ([11]). MH34 is essentially arguing that these two articles are sufficient to change the emphasis of the article, despite the extensive number of critical/rejecting sources. You may be interested in my analysis in the archive.

MH34, you are once again supporting your point with two poor quality sources that stretch and twist the sources. PAS as a distinct clinical entity is not accepted by the majority scholars, and what you are trying to convey (which looks like parental alienation to me) is a different page. Also, you can't appeal to the "wikipedia community" - that's us. If you're really interested in greater input, you could take up one of the many suggestions repeatedly offered to you - a request for comment or noticeboard.

Also Michael, you are saying that there are only two reasons why PAS is not accepted - that it's not a helpful diagnosis and that it's symptoms are abnormal. That is Warshak's opinion. There are a variety of other reasons why it's not accepted:

• lack of empirical support, and in some cases outright rejection (Faller; Jaffe, Crooks & Bala; Jaffe, Lemon & Poisson; Sparta & Koocher; Ackerman; Waldron & Joanis; Emery; Emery, Otto & O'Donohue; Bruch; Drozd; Caplan)
• lacking scientific validity (Bernet; Faller; Bruch; Wood; Hoult)
• lacking scientific reliability (Bernet; Faller; Bruch; Wood; Hoult; Warshak) and the one study that tried to evaluate reliability was flawed (Drozd)
• it's sexist (Sparta & Koocher; Bala; Ottaman & Lee)
• it's misapplied in courts (Gardner) and shouldn't appear in courts (Bernet; Bruch; Wood; Walker, Brantley & Rigsbee; Drozd)
• it's not accepted by social scientists (Wood) or legal scholars (Hoult)
• it masks real abuse of children and spouses (Bruch; Walker, Brantley & Rigsbee)
• it's not part of the DSM (Jaffe, Crooks & Bala; Hoult; Dallam; Caplan; Comeford), Gardner did a run-around of the peer review process when he pushed for it to be included in the DSM (Caplan; Gardner) and most custody evaluators don't think it should be (Baker)
• it's not accepted by the AMA, APA (Hoult; Dallam; Caplan; Comeford), the other APA (Bruch; Sparta & Koocher; the APA presidential taskforce), or United States National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (Ottaman & Lee)
• it has failed the Frye test (Hoult)
• it confuses clinical work (Warshak)
• it oversimplifies the dynamic between parents and children (Bow, Gould & Flens; Waldron & Joanis)
• it's initial publications lacked peer review (Warshak) and those that were peer reviewed lacked validity and reliability (Bruch; Wood)
• it's based on anecdote and case studies (Ackerman; Raglan & Fields)
• the respect and weight granted to it by judges in courts is inappropriate (Hoult)
• it's junk science (Faller * 2)

So saying there's only 2 reasons why it's not accepted, and using just Warshak to justify them, is not true. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the proposed edit again:

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

None of the quotes above contradict the proposed edit. Not one.

"saying there's only 2 reasons why it's not accepted"

Clearly, without doubt, the proposed edit does NOT state that there are only two reasons why PAS is not accepted.

(1) All of the criticisms that WLU listed above are particular criticisms that are described by one of the two types of disagreement: whether or not these symptoms are an abnormal disturbance and whether or not PAS is a helpful new diagnostic category.

(2) The proposed edit does NOT eliminate any of the particular criticisms that have been included in the article. (A second proposed edit concerns a sentence sourced by Emery that is scientifically incorrect. The source even includes a footnote by the author in which he "admits" that he is "fighting rhetoric with rhetoric.")

We can modify the proposed edit as follows:

PAS is not accepted as a syndrome. That some children chronically and irrationally reject a parent in part as a result of the influence of the other parent is not a point of contention in the social science literature.(Warshak, 2001; Bernet, 2008) PAS, however, is not accepted as a syndrome because broadly there is disagreement about whether or not these symptoms are an abnormal disturbance and whether or not PAS is a helpful new diagnostic category.(Warshak, 2001) Michael H 34 (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

We've not agreed to include the edit at all, this is a discussion about inclusion, not about modifying an agreed upon statement. Chronic and irrational rejection is actually a point of contention (Bow et al), there is at best cautious acceptance and there is already an adequate mention of parental alienation – the last line of the scientific status section. I see no reason to include more. There’s still substantive debate over whether the specific symptoms described even exist, and the majority agree that PAS itself isn’t proven. Bernet doesn't even argue for PAS to be included as a syndrome. Arguing for PAS to be included as a syndrome puts the cart ahead of the horse, because there are many specific objections to the clinical entity as well as the underlying symptoms. Because there’s a lack of support for it’s underlying symptoms, it’s progression, it’s causes, etc., that is why no one even bothers talking about making PAS an official syndrome.

Incidentally, Emery “fights rhetoric with rhetoric” because he views PAS as a completely unproven assertion – he can’t fight science with science because PAS has no strong scientific support. He’s using a rhetorical device to emphasize that there is no science to support PAS, that is his point. I'll quote at length:

Richard Gardner’s response to Kelly and Johnston’s (2001) critique of so-called “parental alienation syndrome” (PAS) provokes two strong reactions: sympathy and frustration. On the one hand, I am sympathetic to authors who wish to write rejoinders to critiques of their ideas, and I am particularly sympathetic since Gardner’s paper was submitted posthumously. On the other hand, Gardner makes sweeping and misguided claims about PAS and about science. As a scientist, I am outraged by the misunderstandings, errors in logic, and sweeping assertions in his article. Gardner writes forcefully and with conviction, and I worry that the unwary will be more persuaded by the tone than the substance of his arguments. Rhetoric is a tool for pursuing truth in the courtroom. Rhetoric is not a tool of truth in science.¹ If it were, scientific journals would be perpetually filled with arguments about, for example, evolution versus creationism or the psychological parent versus the alienating parent. According to the rules of science, Gardner is free to offer his hypothesis about alienating parents. But his hypothesis should not be believed, especially in public forums like the courtroom, until proven true by scientific research. As Gardner notes in his article, only one study (his own) has even attempted a statistical analysis of PAS. Objective, public replication by independent investigators is another basic rule of establishing truth in science. By his own admission, there have been no independent, objective, or public replications of Gardner’s assertions. Thus, while scientists hold that it is possible that his ideas may, one day, be proven true, the rules of science dictate that in the meantime we must view PAS as unsubstantiated. Anyone who presents PAS as supported by science either misunderstands the rules of science or the nature of scientific evidence...¹I am aware that I fight rhetoric with rhetoric in this article. This is not the forum for a dusty treatise on science, and as the rules of science make absolutely clear, the burden of proving the validity of PAS lies with its proponents. It is not my burden to disprove the hypothesis, because doing so is an impossible task. The reader who objects to this basic rule of science can assume the burden of proving that this article was not dictated to me by a blue Martian sitting on my shoulder.

Again, Emery makes the claim and statement because he views PAS as utterly unproven, a point agreed upon by many others. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

break

(Indent) Neither of these proposed paragraphs have my support. I concur with WLU's posting above, and in addition add some of my own, some repetitions of things that have been said in the past, some multiple times.

• Sentence 2 ("That some children chronically and irrationally reject a parent in part as a result of the influence of the other parent is not a point of contention in the social science literature.(Warshak, 2001; Bernet, 2008")) is not verifiable and is frankly a misrepresentation of the sources, both specifically and generally. Nowhere does Bernet state that "some children chronically and irrationally reject a parent in part as a result of the influence of the other parent" or that this is not a point of contention. In fact, his formulation, which he calls PAD, has no mention AT ALL of the influence of parents in the development of PAD. In addition, contrary to what is claimed above, Bernet specifically states that "There has been disagreement over the exact criteria for parental alienation syndrome and its progeny, and disagreement over the cause of this condition. For example, for a child to develop PAD, is it necessary for one parent to actively bad-mouth and alienate the child against the second parent? Or, should we say that a child can develop PAD as a way to avoid being caught in the crossfire of the parents' battle, even though neither parent actively or purposefully caused the alienation?" One of the very sources MH34 cites actually directly contradicts the sentence proposed. This, unfortunately, is what comes of citing from articles that you have not actually read, MH34. As for Warshak, he states only that "Most mental health and legal professionals agree" about the influence of a parent "to some extent"[12] In addition, the proposed sentence is, as Bernet summarizes well, just plain inaccurate. There is plenty of contention and disagreement about this precise point (see Kelly and Johnston, Bala, Bow, Bond etc)
• Sentence 3, ("PAS, however, is not accepted as a syndrome because broadly there is disagreement about whether or not these symptoms are an abnormal disturbance and whether or not PAS is a helpful new diagnostic category.(Warshak, 2001)) is sourced to a 2001 paper. There has been much water under the bridge since then, and I share WLU's concerns about this as an up-to-date and useful source about why it has not been accepted as a syndrome. I also share WhatamIdoing's view that we are not writing an article about how to get a syndrome accepted. These very significant concerns aside, in this case too, MH34 is misrepresenting the source. Warshak's first point is that it needs to be shown that "the phenomenon exists". Warshak dispenses with this by merely pointing (without evidence) to what "most mental health and legal professionals" believe, and what the "social science literature" states without contention. From the above (Bernet etc), we know this to be inaccurate; if it wasn't inaccurate in 2001, it certainly is now, what with evidence from Baker, Bow etc, as well as all the multitude of other articles and books that have disputed that PAS exists as Gardner and Warshak presented it.
• I don't have a problem with sentence 1, (PAS is not accepted as a syndrome) but it's in the article already.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but I view this proposal as another poorly researched (ie inaccurate) attempt to push a particular point of view. --Slp1 (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)

Emery

"This is not the forum for a dusty treatise on science, and as the rules of science make absolutely clear, the burden of proving the validity of PAS lies with its proponents."

This is a gross misunderstanding of science. Agreement about (1) what exists as a phenomena, (2) what is considered to be a disturbance and (3) what is a useful description of the phenomena are the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome.

Critics Kelly and Johnston also used the phrase "agreed upon." This was posted on this page by Slp1. Kelly and Johnston agree with Warshak and not with Emery. Emery's statements, which were caveated by the footnote in which he "admits" that he is "fighting rhetoric with rhetoric" appeared in a law journal and in some . Therefore, his caveated article cannot be relied upon as scientifically proper. No syndrome has ever been "proven to be true." Ever.

The proposed edit

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

None of the quotes listed by WLU above contradict the proposed edit. Not one.

"saying there's only 2 reasons why it's not accepted"

Clearly, without doubt, the proposed edit does NOT state that there are only two reasons why PAS is not accepted.

(1) All of the criticisms that WLU listed above are particular criticisms that are described by one of the two types of disagreement: whether or not these symptoms are an abnormal disturbance and whether or not PAS is a helpful new diagnostic category.

(2) The proposed edit does NOT eliminate any of the particular criticisms that have been included in the article.

No valid reason has been offered to oppose the proposed edit by WLU. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

(Eyes wide open in amazement) Emery's description of the scientific process is thoroughly mainstream; Kelly and Johnston disagree with Warshak and Gardner on most fundamental aspects of PAS: they agree that children may exhibit alienation from their parents, but disagree about why); syndromes are eminently "proveable" (e.g. Down's, Treacher-Collins, AIDS, SARS, Tourettes, Aspergers.) And if you really think that no valid reason has been provided, then a WP:RFC will support you. Perhaps you should start one. --Slp1 (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Slp1: "syndromes are eminently "proveable"

No, there is agreement and acceptance. Proof is a very strong word in science. Nevertheless Emery's views about science are not included in a mainstream scientific journal. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Sentence 2

"That some children chronically and irrationally reject a parent in part as a result of the influence of the other parent is not a point of contention in the social science literature.(Warshak, 2001; Bernet, 2008"))

Slp1: "is not verifiable and is frankly a misrepresentation of the sources, both specifically and generally."

The sentence is very faithful to what Warshak wrote: [13] Here's the applicable quote:

"Most mental health and legal professionals agree that some children whose parents divorce develop extreme animosity toward one parent that is not justified by that parent’s behavior and, to some extent, is promulgated or supported by the other parent. That such children exist is not a point of contention in the social science literature. At issue is whether we should regard this type of disturbance as abnormal, and if so, whether a separate diagnosis for these children provides significant benefits beyond already existing labels, and whether PAS is the best way to conceptualize and label this disturbance."

Slp1: "There is plenty of contention and disagreement about this precise point (see Kelly and Johnston, Bala, Bow, Bond etc)"

Criticism of the syndrome does not contradict acceptance of the existence of the phenomena (that some or all of the 8 symptoms exist in some children) and acceptance that in SOME children the symptoms result from the influence of the other parent.

Slp1: For example, for a child to develop PAD, is it necessary for one parent to actively bad-mouth and alienate the child against the second parent? Or, should we say that a child can develop PAD as a way to avoid being caught in the crossfire of the parents' battle, even though neither parent actively or purposefully caused the alienation?"

This could be viewed as criticism that PAS should not be accepted as a syndrome because it is not a useful new diagnostic category because mental health professionals cannot distinguish between patients in this case. However, it does not contradict that there is acceptance that in SOME children the symptoms result from the influence of the other parent. Not one author says otherwise.

Michael H 34 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

As I pointed out, it is a misrepresentation of Warshak, because you have combined two sentences together, the critical one of which states that only "Most mental health and legal professionals" agree, not that it is "not a point of contention". (And neither of them mention the "chronically or irrationally" part. That's ignoring the issue of the out-of-date nature of the comment and source. I take it you agree that you have mispresented Bernet.

As I have said, over and over again, nobody disputes that some children may be alienated from their parents. What is thoroughly in dispute (and almost totally discarded at this point) in the field is Gardner's conception of PAS, including existence, causality, treatment etc.. This is an article about PAS, and all of these aspects are already included included in the article. The influence of parents clearly is a point of contention as one of your own sources makes clear, and why all the newer conceptions (parental alienation, parental alienation disorder, etc) do not include the parent's actions as a criteria for the disorder. But I'm repeating myself and will do so again. Your paragraph is not an accurate representation of either the sources you have provided, or of the literature in general. --Slp1 (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Slp1: "The influence of parents clearly is a point of contention"

Whether or not a mental health professional can discern the causes of the symptoms relates to whether or not PAS is a useful new category. No author contradicts that there is acceptance that in SOME children the symptoms result from the influence of the other parent.

Bernet states that the "phenomena of PAD is nearly universally accepted." I did not misrepresent him. (According to WLU's analysis, PAD is based on the same 8 symptoms as PAS.) Michael H 34 (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael H 34 (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

A theory is a proposed explanation. Science then tests that theory with predictions, interventions and measurement (theory, methodology and data). Gardner didn't do this. Ergo, no science. Its status as scientifically proven must come before it's status as a true syndrome, otherwise we're basically taking some guy's word for it. That's religion, not science. Science is not agreement or authority statements, it's data. Emery's point is that there's no good, repeatable, accepted data to support PAS. I don't know why you keep focussing on the wording, and ignoring the substance. Has Emery made any errors in his summary of things? Are there other sources that point out that he is wrong in his assessment of the evidence? Your point about an article being "proven" is...kinda incomprehensible. Again, the point that Emery is making is that despite pretentions and bluster by PAS advocates, there is no science to back it up. It's not up to Emery to prove that there's no science. You can't prove a negative, it's up to the PAS proponents to prove PAS exists through empirical research. Otherwise, and this is Emery's point, they're just babbling. Without testing and experimentation, it's inappropriate to do anything with PAS, let alone include it in the DSM as a synrome. This isn't an occasion for quote mining, please engage with the substance of Emery's paper. Why does Emery use rhetoric instead of data?

Oddly enough, Kelly and Johnson's original paper isn't used on this page, only their rebuttal to Gardner. Slp1, could you e-mail me a copy?

This article is about parental alienation syndrome. Ergo, your statement "Criticism of the syndrome does not contradict acceptance of the existence of the phenomena " is mind-bogglingly irrelevant. Since you admitted you're not talking about parental alienation syndrome, we're pretty much done here, aren't we? When a scholarly consensus emerges about the "phenomena" that you believe exists, then we can certainly turn our efforts to that page. Talking about the symptoms that are believed (by Gardner and other advocats) to underly parental alienation syndrome is original research and coatracking on this page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two sources that inform us that the phenomena of PAS exists (there are some children who have some or all of these 8 symptoms) and these 2 sources are not contradicted by a single source. In my view, this is a valid point to include in the article. It does not imply that PAS is accepted and the proposed edit makes this clear. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael, we're writing for readers. Readers will interpret a statement that "PAS is not accepted as a syndrome because..." as meaning "not accepted as a syndrome only because...". If we list two reasons, they will believe that there are only two reasons. Adding "broadly" or "generally" or other qualifiers won't help. If you want a statement that "PAS is not accepted as a syndrome because...", then you must agree to include all of the critics' reasons, sourced to the critics themselves, and not just the two relatively minor ones named by a supporter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your valid comment. I propose the following for your consideration:

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

(After adding the proposed edit, the other criticisms included in the article will still be included. In another proposed edit, I request that the misleading, unscientific rhetoric sourced by Emery be deleted. A RFC has been added below for this purpose.)

Michael H 34 (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

You ignore the serious issue of verifiability that I brought up above. Neither Warshak nor Bernet state what you would have them say. Glossing things over with "is not accepted as a syndrome for many reasons" does not satisfy WIAD's very legitimate concern about the undue weight given to minor reasons made by a supporter. --Slp1 (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What you refer to as minor reasons are the criteria for the acceptance of a syndrome. They do not as you say gloss over anything and they certainly do not detract from the other criticisms at all. I also assert that the proposed edit is faithful to what Warshak wrote, which is also supported by Bernet. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Break 2

Warshak's quote:

"Most mental health and legal professionals agree that some children whose parents divorce develop extreme animosity toward one parent that is not justified by that parent’s behavior and, to some extent, is promulgated or supported by the other parent. That such children exist is not a point of contention in the social science literature. At issue is whether we should regard this type of disturbance as abnormal, and if so, whether a separate diagnosis for these children provides significant benefits beyond already existing labels, and whether PAS is the best way to conceptualize and label this disturbance."

The proposed edit:

PAS is not accepted as a syndrome. That some children chronically and irrationally reject a parent in part as a result of the influence of the other parent is not a point of contention in the social science literature.(Warshak, 2001; Bernet, 2008) PAS, however, is not accepted as a syndrome for many reasons; there is disagreement about whether or not these symptoms are an abnormal disturbance and whether or not PAS is a helpful new diagnostic category.(Warshak, 2001) Michael H 34 (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

It wasn't accepted before, I don't see what has changed. Warshak has not a single reference after his bold assertion that most professionals agree. The statement is irrelevant to the page and I still oppose it. Which should come as no surprise since nothing has changed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and for exactly the same reasons that I have detailed endlessly above. I will also note that this "mothers' rights" opponent of the FRM (since blocked for disruption), considers this article to be biased, but because it is pro-FR!!! [14] Since activists on both side of the question seem to consider it biased, one can only presume we are doing something right in terms of NPOV!!

Michael, it occurs to me that possibly part of the reason that there are no responses to your request for comment is that your initial point-form statement of position (complete with pdf links etc) is listed on the RFC page. [15]. You'll notice that it is a different format from most requests; it may be better to update your request there with a shorter, simpler question; it's probably worth noting that the question/request is supposed to be neutrally phrased too, which the current version isn't. Maybe with some changes there will be more takers for the question.--Slp1 (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will eventually rephrase. I intend to seek comment on the proposed edit above as well. Michael H 34 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Proposed Edit - Statement Sourced By Warshak and Bernet

Warshak's quote:

"Most mental health and legal professionals agree that some children whose parents divorce develop extreme animosity toward one parent that is not justified by that parent’s behavior and, to some extent, is promulgated or supported by the other parent. That such children exist is not a point of contention in the social science literature. At issue is whether we should regard this type of disturbance as abnormal, and if so, whether a separate diagnosis for these children provides significant benefits beyond already existing labels, and whether PAS is the best way to conceptualize and label this disturbance."

The proposed edit:

PAS is not accepted as a syndrome. That some children chronically and irrationally reject a parent in part as a result of the influence of the other parent is not a point of contention in the social science literature.(Warshak, 2001; Bernet, 2008) PAS, however, is not accepted as a syndrome for many reasons; there is disagreement about whether or not these symptoms are an abnormal disturbance and whether or not PAS is a helpful new diagnostic category.(Warshak, 2001) Michael H 34 (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Edit wars

Can we stop editing the article for right now? Whatever state it's in, even thought it's doubtless m:The Wrong Version, can we just stop for a little while? The last fifty changes in the article have resulted in almost no net changes -- a couple of sentences moved around, the addition of a POV tag, and a couple of refs rearranged. That's it. That's a real waste of computing resources.

Michael, you might as well resign yourself to the fact that practically every change you want to make does not have consensus. So please just stop for a while: you've gone beyond WP:BOLD editing and are heading towards edit warring. Instead, please identify the single, smallest, least objectionable change you'd like to make, and lay it out here for me, okay? It might be one sentence, or one paragraph -- just tell me what you want to change, and why, and then we'll give WLU and Slp1 a day to complain, and if everyone manages to agree, then we'll make that one, single, small change -- and proceed from there.

Will this work for everyone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As you probably know, consensus is not achieved by counting people. In forming a consensus, we must consider the merits of the statements and not the number of editors. This talk page documents the statements made in support of the proposed edit.

I have already reduced the proposed edits.

These are the proposed edits: [16] and [17]. (They do not include required corrections.)

(1) I reduced the "such children exist" portion of the first proposed edit to just a phrase based on your statement that the edit as originally constructed was "emphasis on a side show." WLU recently asked why the article must include a statement about the phenomena of PAS (the existence of the symptoms in children). The reason for this is that we are writing a NPOV article and the existence of the phenomena - that such children exhibit these symptoms is one of the criteria used to evaluate the "Scientific Status" of any syndrome including PAS. Please see the paragraph titled "Conceptualizing PAS" from the Warshak source. [18]

(2) The sentence properly attributed to Gardner that the indoctrination of PAS is a form of child abuse must be included. Even if the article did not include the assignment of motives by others to Gardner, the statement written and attributed to Gardner, who first proposed PAS, is both notable and reliable. We are writing a NPOV article. Gardner is not the only notable person to state this view. Please see the title of Chapter 4 of Amy Baker's book[19].

(3) WLU did a careful analysis of the similarities and differences between PAS as proposed by Gardner and PAD more recently proposed by Bernet. He correctly concluded that there are some differences. However, as he pointed out in his analysis, PAS and PAD are based on the same eight symptoms. Although he suggested that including a phrase "based on the same eight symptoms" provided too much detail, I suggest that "based on the same eight symptoms" is the most significant detail of all. The characterization "related to, but distinct from" is inappropriate because PAS and PAD are based on the same 8 symptoms.

(4) The statement sourced by Emery about "proof that it is true" must be attributed and demoted. It is unscientific because "proof that it is true" is not the criteria used for evaluating and accepting syndromes. In the source Emery "admits" that he is "fighting rhetoric with rhetoric." If the article is to be neutral then it must not present "fighting rhetoric with rhetoric" as unattributed fact, especially when the statement is without doubt untrue. The Warshak source provides the criteria for acceptance of a syndrome ("proof that it is true" is a farcical criteria). Please see the paragraph titled "Conceptualizing PAS" from the Warshak source: [20] Michael H 34 (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Michael H 34

You seem to have confused consensus with neutrality. Consensus is achieved when everyone agrees enough to quit reverting; if you have even one person that objects, then you do not have consensus. Neutrality, by contrast, is not achieved by getting everyone to approve of the text, but by accurately reflecting the reliable sources.

Tendentious editing, on the other hand, is when an editor keeps making changes despite a reasonable belief that they're going to be removed again.

You've listed four issues. Please pick one to discuss in isolation from all other desired changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest creating four talk page sections and starting with one of them. I have no problem with discussing four separate issues, even if the issues have been discussed previously, this will summarize them in case external input is requested. The length of the page means that the reasons and objections are being intermixed and lost in different sections and even across pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Miszabot is removing the section because of the time/date stamp. This should prevent it from being rearchived. Please don't play with the Miszabot template if you don't know what you're doing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)