Talk:Parental alienation syndrome/Archive 1

American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, DC Misquoted

The entire quote on the web page reference is The American Psychological Association (APA) believes that all mental health practitioners as well as law enforcement officials and the courts must take any reports of domestic violence in divorce and child custody cases seriously. An APA 1996 Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family noted the lack of data to support so-called "parental alienation syndrome", and raised concern about the term's use. However, we have no official position on the purported syndrome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith research (talk • contribs) 23:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

PAS around the world

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS ) has been accepted legally in many countries around the world, including the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Mexico, Argentina, etc. and known as Sindrome de Alienacion Parental (SAP) in the Spanish speaking countries. Everyday new Judgments are posted on our forums recognizing the existence of PAS. AXJ totally disagrees with the statement that "we have no offical position on the purported syndrome" because it simply proves that not enough research has done on the matter. More children must be interviewed. AXJ also supports and promotes joint custody and equal parenting time as the best way to eliminate PAS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AXJ-USA (talk • contribs) 05:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Would PAS really be called a "disorder" if accepted into the DSM?

Asperger's Syndrome, for instance, is in the DSM, but is still a Syndrome. Thsgrn 08:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The DSM is full of all kinds of babble. It is in the first crude stage of science which is classification. As such anyone seems to be able to claim anything is a syndrome which little or no cause and effect logic. Witness the controversy over Anti-social disorder or Sociopath/Psychopath. Even psychriatrists cannot reliably 'diagnose' the famous and obscure sociopaths among us such as politicians, busnessmen and other less legal criminals. I take no issue with Dr Gardner because I think he was just using the tools available to him that is calling everything under the sun a syndrome. We need to question the whole idea of syndromes and focus on whole system of relationships here.

Can somebody please check the accuracy of this

"In the United States, approximately 40 percent of children live without their own biological father. Most of these cases reflect situations where the father is incarcerated, abusive, or abandoned the family." It sounded suspect to me that a majority of absent fathers are guilty of these crimes, and it lacks comparison with women. Smilingman 21:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly does sound like propaganda and not worthy of inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.30.123 (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Needs work

I think this article needs some more work. As is, it seems to underscore the views of fathers' rights groups by uncritically accepting the idea that Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is directed against fathers by mothers. Although Gardner's early work dealt with instances of mothers who encouraged PAS in their children, in his later writing Gardner said that fathers encouraged the development of PAS just as often as mothers did. Moreover, it may be important to recognize that Gardner developed his theory of and criteria for PAS based on earlier work done by Judith Wallerstein and others who were interested in the phenomenon of children who aligned strongly with one parent and rejected the other during the parents' separation and divorce.

The judicial record of the acceptance and rejection of PAS is uneven. It has become widely accepted in Canada, for example (which is where I live), such that many "parenting coordinators" (usually mental health professionals appointed by family courts to work closely with high-conflict families to reduce or better manage conflict between the parents) explicitly list expertise in assessing PAS as one of their qualifications.

Quill driver 22:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

This article indeed needs balance. However I suggest that the courts are often among the last authorities to establish unbiased science. I suggest those who wish to study actual facts read Children Held Hostage by Stanley Clawar, and B Valerie Rivlin for a non-sexist study of this topic. It is based on a 10 year study of 700 families in the authors' counseling work with children of divorced couples. Clearly there is a real phenomenom going on here and clearly while mothers choose to alienate children more often, fathers do it too.

no email 1/23/06

Gardner is a psycho who stabbed himself to death. "PAS" is what abusive men call it when their ex wives and children don't want to put up with their abuse anymore and leave or object to their violent and controlling behavior. Gardner didn't do any legitimare research and self published his own rantings. FACT ON CA is an anti-feminist father's rights group what works to eliminate shild support and idolizes men who commit suicide as great dads. Not exactly a scholarly source.

Any parent who tells a child that an abusive parent is great and encourages the child to normalize the abuse would be a bad parent. The normal healthy response to a woman or child who is abused is antipathy for the abuser. This is called domestic violence, not PAS.

There is a reason all of the courts have rejected "PAS" as fake.

The above rant about PAS is understood, when considered from the perspective of a real victim of DV, and where an abusive parent is trying to claim PAS, when there is a real issue of abuse and fear in the child's mind. The problem is, that PAS is real, and good parents are having false, and malicious claims made against them, and children are being turned against good parents for no good reason. This does not ignore that real abuse occurs, but the abuse can and does occur in both directions. This in itself doesn't make PAS fake, or untrue, but allows both sides to claim abuse, and PAS can be an instrument of that abuse. I know for a fact that Parental Alienation occurs in family court proceedings, and this is recognised as a frequent repeatable trend in hostile contested cases, but the S in PAS is what I take issue with and confuses the debate. The jury is out in many areas as to whether PAS is a syndrome or not. I say it is not as it doesn't meet the criteria to be recognised as a syndrome. PA is real, PAS is junk science. The sooner we stop debating the S, and focus on the real issue of PA, and how best to prevent and overcome it, the better. Its a doozy (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Weird!

There was some kind of technical problem here: the page was not rendering. I have purged the cache and now it seems OK. Maybe it was that software upgrade a few hours ago... -- 209.234.96.194 00:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad it worked out; maybe you're right about the upgrade. --Allen 00:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding controversy: high scholarship standards

I would like to avoid this article from needing a "controversy" tag on the talk page. I feel that the best as to do this is to insist that that level of scholarship on the article be high. There are dozens of web sites on either side of the argument that really just help to fuel the fires of controversy by stoking the ignorant primitive feelings of the partisans. Please: do not dumb down the article. It is perfectly possible to let this article expand while maintaining a high level of scholarship. -- 209.234.96.194 00:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Poisoned against his father by vengeful mother

In 2004 my wife (now ex-wife) left for Bermuda while pregnant with my twin daughters. I was placed on the immigration stop (personna non-grata) list and have never seen my children. This is because my ex-wife claims that although I have never tried to harm her, she is afraid that I might.

The truth is that I have never even received a speeding ticket, I lived in Bermuda for three years and never had a black mark on my record. My lifelong reputation is above reproach.

My ex-wife's mother acted in a similar fashion and prevented my ex-wife from meeting her father until she was 24 years old. To this day her 34 year old brother has been so poisoned against his father that he refuses to even meet him. This is commonly known as Parental Alienation Syndrome. There is no question in my mind that it indeed does exist.

More at [1]

Material removed

I've removed the following from the article because no citation was given:

In a study of 700 "high conflict" divorce cases followed over 12 years, it was concluded that the elements of PAS were present in the vast majority of cases. Children Held Hostage, authored by a male clinical sociologist and a female clinical social worker shows eight stages of parental programming and brainwashing, explains the alienating parents' purpose, rationale, and tactics, and diagnoses the type, extent, and degree of social-psychological impact on the children. The parental alienation tactics studied here resemble those found in totalitarian states and mind control groups.

In particular fathers' rights supporters claim to have observed PAS in contested divorce and child custody litigation in family courts.

87.74.18.60 12:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Pas is junk theory

PAS has been discredited by many noteable persons on recent years. much on the www to suppor this.

Gardner's had a Theory of Atypical Sexuality "The younger the survival machine at the time sexual urges appear, the longer will be the span of procreative capacity ..." As part of his theory, Gardner (1992, pp. 24-5) proposes that pedophilia serves procreative purposes. Although the child cannot become pregnant, a child who is drawn into sexual encounters at an early age is likely to become highly sexualized and thus will crave sexual experiences during the prepubertal years. Such a “charged up child” is more likely to transmit his or her genes in his or her progeny at an early age. Gardner (1992, pp. 24-5) states: “The younger the survival machine at the time sexual urges appear, the longer will be the span of procreative capacity, and the greater the likelihood the individual will create more survival machines in the next generation.”

He also developed his own theory concerning the evolutionary benefits of deviant sexual practices or paraphilias. Gardner proposes that many different types of human sexual behavior, including pedophilia, sexual sadism, necrophilia (sex with corpses), zoophilia (sex with animals), coprophilia (sex involving defecation), klismaphilia (sex involving enemas), and urophilia (sex involving urinating), can be seen as having species survival value and thus do “not warrant being excluded from the list of the ‘so-called natural forms of human sexual behavior.’” Such paraphilias may serve nature's purposes by their ability to enhance the general level of sexual excitation in society and thereby increase the likelihood that people will have sex, which then contributes to the survival of the species" (Gardner, 1992, p. 20).

He also states: “The sexually abused child is generally considered to be the victim,” though the child may initiate sexual encounters by “seducing” the adult.

PAS is used by men's rights groups to discredit protective parents, always used against mothers, and has not ever (at least not that I can find) been applied to men. Although the term "Parential Alienation Syndrome" is not quoted as such by judges today, as they dont want to be critisied for believing the theory,I was listening to a judgment a few weeks ago, well that judge must have swallowed the PAS book and was regurgitating the contents - drug addict, abusive father got the contact he wanted and mum threatened with jail time if she so much as utterred another word against dad, to the extent that she if she 'suspects' further abuse, she is not even allowed to take the child to a doctor without court consent.Dottii1 11:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

PAS is used by campaigning fathers groups, as in many of their experiences of family justice systems have seen little or no help or recognition of the very problems good parents see as PAS perpetrated against them. The Syndrome issue is one I feel is a distraction and gets PAS labelled as Junk Science. PA is real and recognised, PAS is not recognise by many jurisdictions. PAS can and may be be used by abusers to counter any real abuse claims that he/she wish to dispel. Just because abusers can claim something, doesn't make it untrue or something that shouldn't be available to genuine cases of PA. The dropping of the word Syndrome, would allow the real issue to be considered in the context of each case. The issue of real abusers trying to escape the truth, is an issue that needs addressing by improved court processes, investment and legislation with sanctions and safeguard. Those who object to PAS, seem to always imply that all Mens or Fathers parenting groups are supportive of parental and child abuse, which of course is untrue and damaging to all those good parents fighting for the best welfare interests of their children. Its a doozy (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

PAS is real!

I was faslely accused of domestic violence by me daughter age 9 (encourged by my ex). My ex manipulted the police and the court system. I was fully exonerated, but it took $30k and 6 months of no paretnal rights and then limited paretnal rights, which was very distructive to me as a father.

I sued for false arrest and defamation. The policer office made up false evidence, the phycologist was manipulated by my ex, via an unsolicited phone call the night before my assessmsnet, and he ends up making an false vicious assessment of me, which was well beyound his training and education to even make. This assessment was published to friends and family. Everyone got immunity from the courts, and no one was ever held responsible.

I have recovered to a pretty good life with the kds, after 4 years, but only because of diligent effort and never giving up.

The system is broken. PAS needs to better recognized and educated about, so police and psychologists and judges understand how distructive it is, rather than get manipulated by this socio-pathic behavior.216.68.126.18 22:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that PA (Parental Alienation) is real and a consequence of hostile litigation and contension around access and control of the child parent relationships. The issue I have with PAS is the S - Syndrome. The argument about whether or not this is a Syndrome as recognised by those bodies that determine is a syndrome exists, is diversionary and weakens the arguments in favour of accepting PA. Many separating families experience common patterns as described in Dr Garners PAS papers but lets drop the S, and focus on the real issue of coaching, alienating and influencing vulnerable children against one parent in favour of the wishes and beliefs of an abusive manipulative parent, aiming to achieve a set outcome and agenda. Its a doozy (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Crtiticism section edits

I have deleted recently added unsourced info to this section, and changed some of the wording to make it more NPOV. The first paragraph of this section needs more work, as it appears that part of it is unsourced also. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-Neutral Point Of View

I am appalled that this article on a controversial syndrome has been constructed in such a way as to imply, in its opening remarks, that the syndrome has been thoroughly discredited (it certainly has not, a growing number of courts are recognizing it as real as are a growing number of family therapists), and, worst of all, implying very strongly that its only use is for pedophiles to refute charges of child molestation. That is obscene and ridiculous. There are many references on this on the web, and I will work on providing them, but we need to work on the incredibly inflammatory and offensive opening paragraphs. This is most certainly NOT junk. Dean Esmay (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

rather than change the lead part first, you may want to work on the main part of the article- the lead should summarize the rest of the article, and it currently does. For example, if you want to put in more scholarly references (which would be great) then they should go into the body, and then you can summarize that in the lead. (The FACT site, though is not a scholarly reference)--Vannin (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC).

I agree this article has some WP:NPOV issues, but removing sourced information and replacing with other information is not the answer. Only information currently in the article that gives it WP:UNDUE should be removed, or the addition of information worked into the article to give it a counter-point view. All additions should, however, conform to WP:VERIFIABILITY. As it stands now, there seems to be an unbalanced presentation of information. I've also tagged it with This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.--«JavierMC»|Talk 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Parental Alienation Syndrome has been used nationwide by batterers as a courtroom tactic to silence abused children by attempting to discredit their disclosures of abuse. This theory is not recognized as valid by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, or the American Medical Association. Parental Alienation Syndrome is not accepted as a psychiatric diagnosis, and has been rejected by the mainstream psychological community. Parental Alienation Syndrome is junk science; there is no valid research or empirical data to support this unproven theory." - This is attributed to Dr. Paul J. Fink, past president of the American Psychiatric Association, and Hon. Sol Gothard, retired judge and former faculty member for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. I think it merits inclusion in the article and justifies using similar phrases in the article. I am also keen to see good sources that support PAS in the interest of a balanced article - I want to ensure that attacks on PAS are of a scholarly tone, not unsourced nonsense such as the claims that Gardner supported pedophilia or incest. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by the APA

Why should this article include more information attributed to the APA other than the information included in the APA's official statement about parental alienation syndrome? I suggest that it should not. Michael H 34 (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Why? Because as the APA statement on PAS, specifically references the APA 1996 Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family and its comments about PAS [2]. These comments about parental alientation allegations were then quoted, appropriately cited to the original report, but you deleted them without seeking any kind of consensus of here first, claiming that somehow because they were not quoted in full in the statement they were not relevant [3] or that they were somehow Original research [4] --Slp1 (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If the sentence were included in the APA's official statement about PAS, then I would not have deleted it. Why should this article include a sentence that is attributed to the APA that is not included in the APA's official statement on PAS? Michael H 34 (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Huh??? The question really is how you can possibly justify seeking to restrict the information to only that specifically contained in the APA statement, when even the statement itself specifically refers to the presidential report and its conclusions about parental alienation there.[5]. --Slp1 (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The article already includes reference to the 1996 report. You would like to add more from the 1996 report, which is not included in the APA's official statement. In my view, it's okay to do so, but such information should not be included in the section titled APA's official position on PAS. To do so is original research. In addition, the source (based on the url that you provided) included nothing about a lack of data supporting PAS, and in fact, never even mentioned Parental Alienation Syndrome at all. Michael H 34 (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

But the title is only called the APA's official position on PAS because that because you changed it to that, right? [6] It can easily be changed back, right? Let's do it.

I don't want to add anything: I didn't add that sentence in the first place. I want to know why you feel that you can delete well-sourced information about the APA's views of Parental alienation from a section about their views.

Per your comments, the sentence you deleted didn't mention anything about data supporting PAS, so your comment on that is irrelevant.[[7]. What the sentence did cite was a specific statement made in the APA presidential report about the dangers of parental alienation determinations, and coming directly from the page of the report given in the citation. I am returning this well cited sentence to the article. If you disagree, then please ask a third opinion or go and ask at the WP:NORN. I will happily abide by whatever their opinion is. --Slp1 (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this information is supported by references.--Vannin (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agreed that the sentence can be included (as long as the page linked to by the URL is considered genuine). I abide by the consensus view. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Per your comments, the sentence you deleted didn't mention anything about data supporting PAS, so your comment on that is irrelevant."

I disagree. My comment was relevant, because the reliability of the url is questionable. The APA official statement indicated that the 1996 Presidential Task Force report on violence in the family included statements about parental alienation syndrome, which were not included in the url purported to be a link to the 1996 Presidential Task Force report on violence in the family. Also, the APA's official statement on PAS can be found on the APA website, but the 1996 Presidential Task Force report cannot be found on the APA website.Michael H 34 (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Check WP:DEADREF and you will see that citations to the Internet archive are perfectly fine, and are in fact is the recommended course of action in a situation like this, where material once posted on a website is no longer available. In any case, no url is actually required, as paper sources without web equivalents are reliable sources for articles. --Slp1 (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The citation is perfectly fine, if the URL is genuine. My concern is that "the APA official statement indicated that the 1996 Presidential Task Force report on violence in the family included statements about parental alienation syndrome, which were not included in the url purported to be a link to the 1996 Presidential Task Force report on violence in the family." Michael H 34 (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I don't understand your point, I'm afraid. The url is genuine, and points to the material in the APA Presidential report discussed in the later APA official statement about PAS.

You have once again deleted large chunk of very well sourced information, claiming for some reason that the material is irrelevant or redundant.[8] Included in this, for example, is well sourced information about that "It is not listed in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) as a psychiatric disorder and is not recognized as a valid medical syndrome by the American Medical Association, or the American Psychological Association." Whil I agree the allegations about pedophilia support are marginal, and have removed them myself, I disagree with your other deletions. Please get consensus here first about for the specific sentences you feel should be deleted. Thank you.--Slp1 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the url for the official statement is genuine. It is the URL for the APA Presidential report that I questioned. The material linked to by the URL doesn't mention PAS while the APA's official statement stated that the report professed concerns about use of the term PAS. The links contradict each other, and the official statement is genuine. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Both urls are genuine and both link to genuine APA documents as I have explained. You and I may feel that the task force report's reference to PAS is a bit oblique, in that they talk about the issue of alienation, without using the exact term PAS. Nevertheless the APA themselves refers to this text in their statement of PAS, so they are making a direct connection. If they didn't, I would agree it would be bordering on original research to quote the task force report, but the APA statement is very clear that they view the task force report as discussing PAS. Vannin agreed with this view above, as you know. --Slp1 (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

The article no longer has a NPOV. Redundant unspecific criticism is given undue weight, and the statement that PAS is not included in DSM IV is not neutral. Michael H 34 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Perhaps you could specify what "redundant unspecific criticism" you are talking about, as suggested above. Also please note from this Arbcom decision[9] that "Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought." That would include the views of the APA, AMA, and APA of course. If you can find mainstream scientific/legal sources that can counter the arguments about PAS introduced in the recent edits then that would be great. --Slp1 (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The level of bias that was added to the article was extreme. Michael H 34 (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

So add some mainstream legal/scientific sources to counter it, as I asked above. For someone who is so keen on WP:CONSENSUS your continuing reversions are a very strange decision, and not in keeping with the WP:BRD cycle. The person who added the material User:Lotterl and I agree that this is well-sourced information that should remain in the article. I have asked you to discuss your reasonings for deletion here first to obtain consensus about their removal. Instead you have decided instead to invoke NPOV, even though you know that the deletion material to achieve (your version of) NPOV is not the way to go on Wikipedia: "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". WP:NPOV. I am not going to revert again, but I ask you to do so, as as to show that you are willing to follow WP policies and guidelines on this matter. I am open to discussion about the suitability, reorganization and condensing of some of the material, but you need to express your opinions here and get consensus first . --Slp1 (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I reduced the obviously biased repetitive criticism in order to improve the article and retained the citations. Michael H 34 (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

If you are right about the bias and repetition then you shouldn't have any trouble getting consensus here for your edits. As requested, please show good faith by reverting your edits per WP:BRD and discussing your proposed changes here first since you currently don't have consensus for them.--Slp1 (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I made good faith edits to improve the article. Michael H 34 (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Yes, I realize that you believe this, but the fact is that your edits don't have consensus, which as you know is important about here. Please revert your edits and discuss what you find problematic here first. Like I said, I am open to discussion.--Slp1 (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I did discuss my edits. Not only was the criticism unduly repetitive, but it lacked attribution. Michael H 34 (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I asked you to revert your edits and to discuss them per WP:BRD. You have not reverted, which is surprising and disappointing given that you do not have consensus for your edits yet. When you have make multiple deletions and move/change sentences, general comments such as the above are not sufficient as discussion points to convince me or any a other editors of the merit of your views so that you can get consensus for what you wish to do. First revert, and then please explain for each sentence exactly what you find problematic with it. Explain carefully what lacks attribution, what is repeated, etc. Like I said I am open to being convinced but you do need to try to convince me (and others). Thank you.--Slp1 (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I did discuss my edits. I specifically stated that not only was criticism unduly repetitive, but that it lacked attribution. I also stated that I was concerned by the URL purported to be a link to the 1996 report by the task force on violence in the family, because although the APA states that the report expressed concern about claims of PAS, the 1996 report does not even mention PAS.

You may edit the article so that it reads the way you want it to read. If repetitive, unattributed criticism is restored to the article, I have good faith that even if I die before making another edit, someone will eventually restore the article to a NPOV. Michael H 34 (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

These sentences describing criticism of PAS are superb:

Gardner's analysis has received criticism for being at best incomplete, if not simplistic and erroneous, for inappropriately assigning all responsibility of the child's behavior to one parent, when in cases where the alienated parent has sufficient parenting time, the child's behavior is oftentimes, but not always, the result of a dynamic in which both parents and the child play a role.[9] A review in the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review stated that a claim of parental alienation syndrome should not be admitted into courts due to a misplaced presentation as a reliable concept, while in reality lacking evidence and proof of causation.[10]

I helped construct the first sentence, and the second sentence was excellent without any help from me.

The first sentence in the section is also an excellent sentence:

Parental alienation syndrome has been extensively criticized by some scientists and jurists, who describe it as inadmissible in child custody hearings based on both science and law.

All three of the sentences above have remained in the article. Michael H 34 (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

The following three sentences are poorly attributed sentences that repeat the idea communicated in the first sentence in the section:

Research has found that Gardner's claims that PAS is "scientifically valid and legally admissible" are not supported.

Studies have found many deficiencies in Gardner's PAS theory.

PAS has never been scientifically confirmed as a legitimate theory, and it has little probative value in court in terms of making decisions about sexual abuse.

Michael H 34 (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Thank you for explaining your concerns in more detail, even if they are mixed in with self-congratulatory comments about your own writing. But I'm afraid I don't agree with your arguments. The quote about PAS not being not scientifically valid and legally admissible is supported by the conclusions of a review article published in academic and peer-reviewed academic journal. Lottrl kindly even gave the quote from the article to support. The same goes for the other sentences you deleted: they review the evidence of other people and all come to the same conclusion. You also deleted other sections, including part about the AMA not accepting it. That wasn't repetitious, and was well-sourced. What is your reasoning for deleting for this? In any case, as you know, the answer to NPOV concerns is to find other mainstream, academic sources that can be added to the article, not to simply to delete material. Can you find some medical associations/psychological associations in other countries that do support the syndrome? That would be a great find.

In the meantime, I have rewritten the first section, to explain the theory in more detail and to cite it. --Slp1 (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I congratulate you for doing a good job on the added material.

"In any case, as you know, the answer to NPOV concerns is to find other mainstream, academic sources that can be added to the article, not to simply to delete material."

I suggest that you are using your extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy in order to justify writing an article that is neither neutral nor encyclopedic. Simply repeating the same criticism gives it undue weight.

"They review the evidence of other people and all come to the same conclusion."

This conclusion is already included in the article. Using the rationale that you provide, you could justify a sentence for each group of people who (review the evidence of other people and then) criticize the theory and describe it as inadmissible in child custody hearings based on both science and law. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Thank you for your first comments. If you truly believe that I am using "my extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy in order to justify writing an article that is neither neutral nor encyclopedic" then please go to the WP:AN and report me. But I think that anybody who looks at my comments here will quickly see that I have been encouraging you to edit in a policy-driven way by doing some research to find out exactly what the mainstream, scientific and legal sources say about this issue and then then reporting on them, and not just deleting well-sourced material (claiming NPOV, V, etc etc) as is your pattern across multiple articles. I have spent the whole day doing just this sort of research here, and have reworked the second section too, as you will have seen.

I have deleted some material on the way. In particular,

I deleted some of the material sourced to this local newspaper article [10] It is not clear to me why the views of Philip Stahl are particularly notable or frankly even that interesting/informative. Baker's views are more notable since she has written a book on the subject, but they are probably better supported by the NYT article in any case. If her views about women's groups are to be included then then need to be are in the context of what men's and women's groups argue about PAS and why. I found some sources about the FRM movement's support of PAS, but deleted is as being somewhat tangential.

I included your suggested edit about case reports being used extensively by Gardner and his supporters, but have deleted that munchausen reference. Munchausen syndrome by proxy is another highly controversial syndrome open to misuse by divorcing parents (see this [11][12]. Given the context, it seems that Ackerman is being critical of the connection made with MSBP.[13] We can include it if you like, but it seems to me to open up a whole can of worms that is outside the scope of this article..

--Slp1 (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with removal of the material sourced by the newspaper article. I strongly disagree with the removal of the criticism in which one parent was blamed for the dynamic.

I am going to return these sourced statements to the article. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I have taken the time to explain in detail my views on this material, including why I believe it gives undue weight to the views a Californian custody evaluator who hasn't got much interesting to say. I'm not sure what you are talking about regarding one parent being blamed for the dynamic, but this issue seems to be nicely covered in the last section in any case, with much better sources. Please do me the courtesy of responding to my concerns in detail, rather than just reverting.--Slp1 (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I now see the one parent sentence you mean, cited to Waldron. I included the citation in the final paragraph about how everybody is partly to blame, which is making the same point, surely.--Slp1 (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

When I have explained my edits, you have ignored what I wrote and/or stated that what I wrote was too general.

The statements from the newpaper article and the statement describing the family dynamic were extremely interesting to me. In particular, I spent a great deal of time carefully constructing the sentence cited by Waldron, and I intend to restore that sentence in full. Since you believe that another sentences relates the same point, then you will not revert my restoration of the sentence that I spent a great deal of time carefully constructing.

The statements from the APA should be restored so that the position of the APA is clear and presented neutrally. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

What is interesting to you is not necessarily encyclopedic. Why are Stahl's opinions/comments published in a local newspaper notable? WP:UNDUE

I am sorry if you spent a long time crafting a sentence, but I'm sure you understand that your time or my time spent isn't a factor in making these decisions.

What is your problem with the APA sentence? I would like more detail.--Slp1 (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As usual, no discussion, just reverts and edit warring to your preferred version. NB this strategy may work temporarily but it is going to get you into serious trouble in the long term. --Slp1 (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You jumped the gun! (Edit conflict!)

The academic view is only one view. What is happening in courts and the education of court practitioners about PAS was deleted when you deleted the reliably sourced sentences in the Whittier newspaper.

I restored the Waldron sentence which fit in nicely with the information that you had added.

I restored the APA sentences that were included in the article prior to your edits because they were neutrally presented. By restoring the prior sentences, I also fixed a grammatical error. Michael H 34 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

No, I didn't jump the gun. Discussion comes before editing not after, when questions have been asked, as you have done.

Contrary to what you say, the academic, scientific view is the principal focus of Wikipedia articles. Please see [14] for a recent arbcom decision on the subject. Note the requirements in the Principles section that the best sources be used, that current mainstream scientific thought be reflected, that the opinions of a minority/unauthoritative sources should not be given undue weight, that discussion not reversion is the approach to use. Your reversion of the somewhat incoherent opinions of a non-notable court Californian evaluator in a local newspaper hardly meets the standards on WP:UNDUE, WP:MEDRS, WP:RS, or this arbcom decision.

I asked you for an explanation of the problem with the APA as I modified it. Your only (belated) response was to imply that my edits were not 'neutrally presented'. Please explain in detail what was not neutrally presented in my version. --Slp1 (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again you have not addressed my statements even after you berate me for not discussing my edits first. Inclusion of the attributed view of the court evaluator presents his views of what is happening in real life in family courts, which are not presented by the other sources. He became notable when he was quoted in the newspaper, and there is no overlap between his views and the views presented elsewhere in the article.

I also restored the statements of Amy Baker. She is also notable and inclusion of the statements attributed to her also provide critical information not included by the other sources.

In my view, your clear desire to demote the APA's statement that it has no position on PAS is what led you to combine sentences and generate a grammatical error. Besides the grammatical error, you provided an improper presentation of the APA's statements by placing it after criticism in an attempt to spin the APA position as criticism. The statements that I presented neutrally, you did not. There is still an issue of conflict between the APA statement and the task force report, but I have accepted your view that the url to the task force report is genuine.

As an aside, did you discuss changes to the APA's statement about PAS or did you just make them without discussing them first? How is it that you can insist that I justify in detail the restoration of neutrally presented information that you rewrote and repositioned without discussing it first?

Finally, the statement about the AMA is irrelevant, and inclusion of the statement about the AMA gives it undue weight and clearly shows that the article was not neutrally written. Parental alienation syndrome is a pychological syndrome and unless information is presented about whether or not the AMA even studied PAS, then the statement about the AMA should not be included. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

A few comments

• We are encouraged to be bold here, and are not required to explain or justify edits in advance, though it is certainly recommended at times. I spent a whole day last week researching, sourcing and and boldly rewriting this article based on academic sources. I explained my decisions for the deletion of certain material here.[15] Without addressing any of the issues and concerns I had expressed, you simply announced that you were going to revert.[16] When I asked you to respond to my concerns about the material [17], your response was to say that you had spent a long time writing the sentences and that you found the information interesting.[18] When I said that these were not reasons for inclusion, that my concerns of WP:UNDUE weight had not been addressed[19] and requesting more information about a neutrality issue, you did not respond and instead just reverted [20]. This is what is called hardly a discussion, is it? You are certainly entitled to revert the deletion of the material, but like I said, this style of revert editing, without addressing the concerns of others, is going to get you into trouble in the long term.
• I'm afraid that you have a muddy understanding of the concept of WP:UNDUE including significance and notability. This shows in your comments about the AMA and Philip Stahl. Let's start with Philip Stahl, the Californian custody evaluator, who is quoted in a local newspaper, and whose opinions you would like to include. You said "He became notable when he was quoted in the newspaper". Let's think about that. If in the course of my work, I was interviewed by a local newspaper here in Canada, would that make my views significant enough to include in this encyclopedia? Would it be appropriate to include a section saying "Slp1 says blah blah blah"? Of course not. Per WP:UNDUE "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". I am not notable and my views are not significant. Why are Philip Stahl's opinions on this subject significant?

In contrast, the fact that the AMA has not recognized the syndrome has been noted in two book chapters by researchers in the field [21][22], a scholarly article [23] as well as the NYT,[24], the Washington Times, Miami Herald [25], the Irish Times and the Herald Sun (available only on Factiva) amongst others. I cannot see how it can possibly be argued that the information about the AMA is "irrelevant", that including a reference to it is including "undue weight" and that it shows that the article is "not neutrally written". On the contrary, since the lack of recognition by this highly notable organization has been noted by scholars and the mainstream media multiple times, and I would argue that deleting this well sourced information is contrary to NPOV.

• Ascribing motives to my actions ("your clear desire to demote the APA's statement that it has no position on PAS") is inappropriate, unfortunate and completely incorrect. What is also inappropriate, in this global encyclopedia article, is the current placement of statements from a professional association (APA) from one particular country in such a prominent position in the second section. If this isn't undue weight, I don't know what is.
• I have always acknowledged Amy Baker's views are significant and could be included if desired, but that her remarks need to be placed in context: the reasons for the opposition of women's groups needs to be explained so that describing their position as unfortunate can make sense. The views of men's groups need to be included too, in this case. I will work on this, since you reverted without addressing this concern at all. --Slp1 (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am also encouraged to be bold here, and I am not required to explain or justify edits in advance, so please end the clear double standard.
• The DSM of the APA is recognized around the world. It's okay by me to combine the section that contained the APA's official statement with another section. However, your edits went much further than that. I politely stated what I believed to be your clear intentions regarding your edit, but only after you demanded that I justify the restoration of the APA statements that I had presented neutrally. You didn't even give a full sentence to the APA's statement of no official position. You buried "no official position" in a clause and surrounded it with criticism.
• If the AMA's lack of position on PAS is verifiable and you wish to include it, please do so. To me it is an inappropriate repetition of bias among the scholarly researchers, if the AMA never even studied this psychological syndrome.
• I agree that the reason for the opposition of the women's groups should be explained and I agreed with the inclusion of the sentence you added prior to the statements attributed to Amy Baker.
• Just because Philip Stahl is from California (as you have pointed out several times) doesn't make his views provincial. He could have been from Canada. That wouldn't make his views provincial. He had to be from somewhere. Philip Stahl's views are reliably sourced and furthermore, they are attributed to him. But most importantly, what he says is highly relevant to this article and he provides information that is not provided by the scholars. In my view, Philip Stahl's views should be included in the article. Michael H 34 (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

• First, thank you for reconsidering certain opinions. I appreciate your willingness to do so.
• Second, there's no double standard: as I said, you are perfectly entitled to revert, but this pattern of reversion without discussion, particularly when you have been asked to discuss, is not following WP policy and guidelines, as has been pointed out to you before, by others.[26]
• "Politely stating [my] clear intentions" is just as inappropriate as doing so impolitely. Please do not make these kinds of accusations about any editor unless you have serious evidence. And as I have said before, if you truly feel that I am editing improperly, I would encourage you to make a post to a noticeboard such as WP:AN; WP:NORN,WP:RSN in order to get help and support.
• You are right that the DSM-IV is influential around the world, but it is published by the American Psychiatric Association not the American Psychological Association. There is no reason here for the undue weight given to the American Psychological Association statement.
• "bias among the scholarly researchers"?? Wikipedia privileges scholarly research and opinion: our priority is the inclusion of the information that they provide. If you honestly feel that academia is biased then perhaps you would feel more comfortable contributing at www.conservapedia.com?
• You still have not explained why Philip Stahl's opinions are significant. I am not concerned about where he comes from. I am not questioning that he is talking about a slightly different topic. I am asking you to justify the inclusion of any opinions of a non-notable custody's evaluator in this article. Yes, his views are verifiable, yes, they are attributed to him, but that doesn't get around the fact that he is not a notable person whose views are important enough to quote. You need to show that he is widely quoted, widely respected, widely published etc to show that his opinions are significant. (See WP:UNDUE). Here's another example to compare it to: Do you really think your cited views on Broccoli should be included in a WP article if you were interviewed about this vegetable in your local newspaper? Surely you would agree that the answer is no. (Unless of course you are in real life a well-published author on the subject of broccoli!! Who knew!! :-))--Slp1 (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is a double standard. On the article about the fathers' rights movement you acted as if you did not need to discuss an edit attributed to Richard Collier. You even acted as if consensus did not apply to you. Many times, you tried to attribute intentions to me rather than discuss anything about that edit. This behavior was far more inappropriate than my one edit in which I provided my attributed view of your intentions with respect to a specific edit regarding the American Psychological Association's statement. Nevertheless, I do apologize for providing my view of your intentions with respect to that edit. It is the first and last time I will provide my view of your intentions.

• I agree with you. You also do not constrain yourself with the burden of discussing all of your edits first.

• Thank you for distinguishing the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association for me. I agreed that the American Psychological Association's statement need not be given a separate section. However, I still oppose including a statement of no position as a clause amidst criticism.

• • Philip Stahl is notable because he was quoted in a reliable newspaper article about this topic.
  • The newspaper article was not discussing brocolli, it was discussing Parental Alienation Syndrome.
  • Especially with respect to certain topics in the social sciences, academic views can be biased and prone to group think. I oppose giving sole weight to views simply because they can be labeled academic views.
  • Most importantly, Philip Stahl provides information that is particularly germane to this article and not provided by anyone else.
    • Philip Stahl's statements are balanced; he states that advocates on both sides of the issue are correct.
    • Philip Stahl's statements are attributed to him and the article is written neutrally. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I'm going to answer most of this on your talkpage, Michael. As regards this article:

• You keep repeating that your theory that anybody whose opinions are published in a local newspaper are by definition notable/significant enough to be included in this encyclopedia; this is nonsense, of course, as I have tried to show you with policy and multiple examples, including the silly broccoli one. However, it turns out that Stahl's opinions are notable since he has written at least two books on the subject of child custody evaluation [27][28] See... it was as simple as that. Don't keep repeating the same arguments... just do some research.
• Thank you for accepting the other issues re the two APAs, and the AMA. I don't have a problem with your placement of the no position statement in first position; I think the flow is bad with it there, so stylistically it works less well, but anyway. However, since there is still no evidence that the APA statement is significant enough to suggest primary placement in the second paragraph of the article, I will be moving it lower down the article. I will also add some context to the statement about father's rights and womens' groups concerns about PAS. --Slp1 (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Notes from prior version

In 1996, the American Psychological Association (APA) released a statement indicating that the organization currently has no official position with respect to parental alienation syndrome. The statement referenced the APA's 1996 Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, and reported that the syndrome lacked data to support it, and expressed concern about the term's use. Parental Alienation Syndrome is currently not listed in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) as a psychiatric disorder.

The 1996 Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family report also expressed concern that custody evaluators "may accuse [the mother] of alienating the children from the father and may recommend giving custody to the father in spite of a history of violence." Dr. Philip Stahl, a child custody evaluator, states that problems described by advocates on both sides of the issue on parental alienation syndrome are happening, adding that during child custody hearings, courts are ruling in favor of people unfairly accused of alienation and are ruling against people who have been alienated. He added that some evaluators do not understand alienation, and some evaluators want to apply it in every case.

Parental alienation syndrome has been extensively criticized by some scientists and jurists, who describe it as inadmissible in child custody hearings based on both science and law. Gardner's analysis has received criticism for being at best incomplete, if not simplistic and erroneous, for inappropriately assigning all responsibility of the child's behavior to one parent, when in cases where the alienated parent has sufficient parenting time, the child's behavior is oftentimes, but not always, the result of a dynamic in which both parents and the child play a role. A review in the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review stated that a claim of parental alienation syndrome should not be admitted into courts due to a misplaced presentation as a reliable concept, while in reality lacking evidence and proof of causation.

Gardner and other therapists initially described the syndrome as one of manipulation by mothers to punish fathers. Dr. Amy Baker, a psychiatrist and supporter of PAS who wrote a 2007 book on the experiences of adult children who claim to have suffered alienation, has stated that it is unfortunate that women's groups have taken a stance against parental alienation syndrome, because many women have suffered because of the actions of alienators. She also stated that gender issues are overshadowing the problems that victims are facing and that mothers or fathers are equally likely to manipulate the children and alienate them from the other parent. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Parental alienation syndrome

AXJ totally disagrees with the statement that "we have no offical position on the purported syndrome" because it simply proves that not enough research has done on the matter. More children must be interviewed. AXJ also supports and promotes joint custody and equal parenting time as the best way to eliminate PAS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.201.100 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead

The Lead is supposed to provide a short summary of the article. A single editor has been regularly removing from the lead various formulations, by two different editors, summarizing a considerable section of the article text concerning how PAS is generally not accepted by the legal and scientific community. This is contrary to WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV.[29][30][31]

In addition, a sentence has been about how the term is considered a relational disorder has been added to the Lead.[32] Note this information about this is not included in the body of the text, raising further questions of compliance with WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. In addition, while this sounds a scientific sounding term, in fact relational disorders are not in the DSM-4 either, and are another controversial proposition for the DSM-V.[33][34][35] --Slp1 (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted again, but your comment about relational disorders is a good one, so I'll remove. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"PAS is generally not accepted by the legal and scientific community"

That is not neutral.Michael H 34 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Neutrality doesn't require us to obfuscate the verifiable facts. --Slp1 (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We are asked to write a neutral article. What you label as "facts" are not attributed and they conflict with the views from reliable sources. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

This is the abstract of one of the cited sources:

Although parental alienation disorder (PAD) is a serious mental condition affecting many children and their families, it is not an official diagnosis or even mentioned in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This article presents arguments for considering PAD a diagnosis: PAD is a prototypical example of a relational disorder; the phenomenon of PAD is almost universally accepted by mental health professionals; PAD is a valid and reliable construct; adopting criteria for PAD will promote systematic research; adopting criteria will reduce the misuse of the concept of PAD; and adopting criteria will improve the treatment of children with this disorder.

Michael H 34 (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

How is it not neutral? A simple assertion is not enough, what sources indicate that it's widely accepted? What source are you citing? What indication is there that that abstract represents the view of relevant experts and is not simply the opinion of one person who managed to get published? If PAS is not widely accepted, then it is undue weight to claim it as a widely accepted diagnosis or concept. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can answer that question, since I have the whole article. It is the opinion of only one man marshalling his evidence about why PAS should be accepted in the DSM-V, precisely because it is not widely accepted --Slp1 (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is not neutral http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parental_alienation_syndrome&oldid=251586537 and neither is the edit that created this article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parental_alienation_syndrome&oldid=280715996. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

"If PAS is not widely accepted, then it is undue weight to claim it as a widely accepted diagnosis or concept."

I am trying to write a neutral article. I never stated that it is universally accepted. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

It's blunt time. Explain why the article is not neutral, or stop complaining. Just stating it's not neutral doesn't help anyone including you. I've found a variety of journal articles that explicitly criticize PAS, with minimal effort. Most of the "pro" articles seem to be by Gardner alone, while criticisms are from several different authors. You can't just say "it's not neutral", you must demonstrate how it's not neutral, referring to reliable sources. WP:UNDUE means we try to represent the subject to the degree that it is accepted in the mainstream, relevant-expert community. Please read WP:NPOV and discuss how it is not neutral. If it's not universally accepted, and if it is in particular, extensively criticized, this should be prominent in both the lead, and the body text. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is clearly not neutral because you have added viewpoints without attribution. I've made some fixes, but I'll be back later. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Every one of my edits have been sourced. If sufficient sources agree about the criticisms, then there's no need to say "X says this, and so does Y, and Z." These are general criticisms of the theory, made by numerous scholars in a variety of reliable publications. So, methinks you are incorrect, we don't need to name every single person who says it's not scientific. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not surprisingly perhaps, given my past interactions with Michael H, I concur with WLU: WP's goal is to have a NPOV given the most reliable sources available; our own personal viewpoint about neutrality doesn't come into the issue, and if there is a desire to balance a point of view, it needs to be done by providing other, equally or more reliable sources, not just by deleting things one disagrees with, or thinks untrue.

A fairly minor case in point is the fact that the multiple academic and mainstream press sources note as significant that the American Medical Association does not recognize PAS as a syndrome. Michael H 34 has repeatedly deleted this information, stating that this is because PAS is not a medical, but a psychiatric condition. This argument is nonsensical at a logical level since psychiatry is a specialty of medicine, and thus any psychiatric condition is clearly considered a medical condition too. But more importantly from our perspective as WP editors, multiple experts in the field have considered it worthy of note that the AMA has not recognized PAS (diffs listed above, in a previous, identical dispute with this same editor, see here too [36]). As a result, it is totally appropriate that we mention their lack of recognition in the article. And I have done so. --Slp1 (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Also worth noting, ultimately the complaint would be one of verifiability, not neutrality, making this argument again nonsensical. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"So, methinks you are incorrect, we don't need to name every single person who says it's not scientific."

I didn't say that we have to name every single person who says it's not scientific. I do not assert that all statements in Wikipedia need attribution. However, we must attribute reliably sourced criticism when another reliable source states that PAS is universally accepted among mental health professionals. You have given undue weight to the critics' views. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Despite being criticized by members of legal and mental health community as lacking in scientific validity and reliability,[1][3][4][5] PAS has been accepted as evidence in custody cases in the United States and some other countries.[6][7]"

This sentence screams POV. It is an example of synthesis. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I would love to know which reliable source says that "PAS is universally accepted among mental health professionals"? (and if you will pardon the attempt at humour, what they were smoking at the time?) --Slp1 (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, what sources says it is universally accepted? A lot of references clearly state that PAS has been criticized for these things, and isn't accepted. It's not a synthesis, it's a summary. I would like, however, to move the references out of the lead and simply use them in the body. It may scream POV to you, but it screams WP:SS to me. Take it to WP:NPOVN if you'd like, but I'm about done here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Bernet: "the phenomenon of PAD is almost universally accepted by mental health professionals" [37] Michael H 34 (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Blanket revert

I blanket reverted the changes by MH34, here's my reasoning on a diff-by-diff basis:

• [38] Ackerman's criticisms of anecdotal evidence isn't repetetive, since no-where else in the page is the anecdotal nature of PAS mentioned. This is a key point - any anecdote can support a theory, what is needed for a theory to be justified is statistical evidence. The difference between science and pseudoscience is the latter's penchant for anecdotal evidence and a propensity to ignore contradictory, non-supporting or otherwise "not useful" evidence. Accordingly, Ackerman's criticism is not only well-sourced, but crucially relevant to the status of PAS as a nonscientific theory. Ackerman may be responding to Rand's 1997 literature review, but also characterizes Rand's review as thorough, indicating it's not missing important evidence. The criticism therefore applies to the theory as a whole, Page 74.
• [39] I'll rephrase so it's comprehensible. It's a sourced claim and relevant, one of the three critical ones found in the article. As the article is appended in a PDF, the good-faith effort would be to read through the original source and make it more understandable. But I don't mind doing so.
• [40] Yes, really.
• [41] At what point does something no longer become "critics state" and become simply a criticism? It's not attribution to say "Critics state", in fact, I'd say it's closer to weasel-wording. And it's not "PAS has not met minimal scientific standards, has not been replicated except by proponents AND it is just a hypothesis." It's "PAS has not met minimal scientific standards BECAUSE it has not been replicatd except by it's proponents, and THEREFORE it is at best a hypothesis."
• [42] Slp1 makes the case for this statement very well above. Continuing to remove this is absurd; it's well-sourced, it's relevant, and it really looks like an effort to snow out a criticism on very specious grounds, merely because it is a criticism. If the AMA does not recognize it, as a scientific body this is quite relevant. Also note that WP:MEDRS urges us to use reliable secondary sources, which includes statements from major health organizations. The lack of recognition by two significant, relevant bodies, as noted by two reliable sources, is quite relevant and should not be removed.
• [43] I don't care either way about this edit.

WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Rework

The article needs a re-work; I'm doing so in Word but will paste back to the main page when I'm finished; hopefully not more than an hour. Mostly I'm going to be dividing up and streamlining the sections - legal criticisms separate from scientific, supporting evidence separate from criticisms. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Done the re-org. All references have been changed to AuthorYear (i.e. Ackerman2008; Gardner2001) for ease of referencing. I've tried to chunk relevant sections together (should be obvious via the section headings; for the most part I didn't add or remove much but I did find urls where possible and adjusted the wording. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Criticism and the Frye Test

"Despite influencing many custody disputes, PAS has not met minimal scientific standards, having not been replicated outside of its proponents and at best is a hypothesis.[26] PAS contains a variety of theoretical and practical problems and lacks a scientific foundation.[3] Critics state that Gardner has promoted PAS to a syndrome based on a vague clustering of behaviors, and has not been included in the DSM; despite this, Gardner wishes PAS to be included so it could be cited in court cases.[14] PAS has not been recognized by any major mental health or legal organization, but despite this it has appeared in the courts.[9] Gardner’s own writings on the subject, published in both peer reviewed journals and legal decisions, have been found to not support the existence of PAS, lacking both validity and reliability, despite being presented as a reliable concept.[3][4] PAS also lacks adequate scientific support to be considered a syndrome.[23]"

The above is contrary to legal findings and is not written neutrally with attribution.

"PAS has been challenged under the Frye test, for failing to gather general acceptance within it's field.[31]"

The above is incomplete.

PAS has passed the Frye test and the Mohan test. Michael H 34 (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

How very interesting. Do you have any reliable sources to back this claim up? Note that this legal text says precisely the opposite. [44] --Slp1 (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added the second citation to the "failing the Frye test" line. If you have sources that explicitly support your point, feel free to bring them up. The article is currently somewhat unbalanced and needs expansion in the areas that support PAS; please find sources that do so and use them to improve the page. The Mohan test is Canadian, R. v. Mohan? You'll need sources for both of those assertions. It is certainly legitimate to have a point-counterpoint on the issues, if both are well sourced. If it has passed Frye/Mohan on some court levels, but been rejected on others, that is of course relevant. We should be documenting the controversy, not asserting that it is over. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

PAS passed the Frye test in a circuit court based in Florida. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Not to be rude, but {{fact}}. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link about the Frye test: [45] Michael H 34 (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Unreliable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a Gardner source saying that in Kilgore v. Boyd PAS cleared the Frye hurdle.[46]; but the claim is much critiqued by Hoult, here Among his citations, Gardner highlighted Kilgore v. Boyd, claiming that Kilgore held that PAS “satisfied [the] Frye Test criteria for admissibility in a court of law” because it found PAS had “gained enough acceptance in the scientific community to be admissible in a court of law.” Gardner claimed that Kilgore “will clearly serve as a precedent and facilitate the admission of the PAS in other cases—not only in Florida, but elsewhere.” In fact, Kilgore set no precedent. The cited Kilgore decisions were neither published nor issued in written form, and the holdings were limited to affirmations and denials of the litigants' motions. Contrary to Gardner’s claim, none of the fifty cited decisions set precedent holding PAS admissible.[47]. --Slp1 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a reliable source. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Not recognized by the American Medical Association (AMA)

Sometimes reliable sources provide a POV. As noted above, sometimes authors advocate.

Although a rationale was provided for including criticism in the article, the rationale is weak. PAS does not come under the purview of the AMA. It is not logical to conclude that it does simply because psychiatry is a branch of medicine, and there is no evidence to suggest that the AMA has reviewed the existence of PAS.

It is okay to include to state that the APA does not include PAS in DSM-IV without attribution. It is okay to include critics of PAS state that PAS is not recognized by the AMA.

However, to state that PAS is not recognized by the AMA without attribution is in my view, the inclusion of an advocate's viewpoint in the article based on a false rationale. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

So to be clear, your suggestion is that we should say something like... "According to the ^New York Times, the Washington Times, the Irish Times, The Miami Herald, and the Herald Sun newspapers, as well as scholars Stephanie Dallam, Ciara Doyle, and Jennifer Hoult, the syndrome has not been recognized by the AMA"? --Slp1 (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't need attribution when many sources all say the same thing, we just footnote the sources and state the claim. Do you have any evidence or sources that the AMA DOES recognize PAS? POV is our problem, not the source's problem. Sources must be reliable, not nonpartisan. In a controversial condition, the sources WILL be partisan. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Sources must be reliable, not nonpartisan."

I agree that sources must be reliable. However, the article must comply with the NPOV policy, and it does not. A NPOV is achieved through attribution. In my view, there is no rationale for not providing attribution to criticism.

Whether attribution is required for "not included in DSM-IV" depends on whether or not the statement is presented as criticism or presented as an official position. There is no doubt that "not recognized by the AMA" is transparent criticism. The statement must be attributed if it is included in a NPOV article. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Attribution is required for biased statements; bias itself is not immediately obvious, and labelling something as biased is a judgement call, which is why we are on the talk page. Far more than attribution is required to be NPOV, you must also represent a topic as it exists in the minds of the appropriate expert group, as well as within the larger society for historical and social impacts. It's not just a matter of someone criticizing (or praising) something, it's also a matter of that someone being a relevant expert giving full disclosure of the information justifying their opinion. In my mind, if a multitude of reliable sources converge on the same opinion, that is a good indication that the opinion is at least that of a substantial minority and accordingly no longer requires specific attribution and somewhat weaselly-words can be used (i.e. "critics" rather than "X, Y and Z critics") so long as the criticisms are referenced.

If PAS is not in the DSM, or recognized by the AMA, those are facts, not biased statements. "PAS should not be in the DSM or recognized by the AMA" would be a biased statement requiring attribution. I've moved the position statements sections out of criticisms and into its own heading; now it's not a criticism, it's just facts. The AMA not having a position on it is neither a criticism nor an endorsement but it does acknowledge that the AMA does not believe it is worth having as a medical (i.e. psychiatric) syndrome. Which is well in line with many other explicit criticisms of the science and publication history of PAS. If you are concerned about the POV-status of this page, you could post a statement to that effect on WP:NPOVN. Personally I think you are relatively inexperienced (compared to Slp1 and myself) and hold a very strong opinion about the topic, making you believe criticisms are NPOV when in fact they are a due weight representation of the opinion of the relevant scholars (legal and psychological). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Not recognized by the AMA" is transparently obvious criticism and it is not relevant. You recognized it as criticism above. However, this is a small point in comparison to the advocacy POV that is now included in the article's lead. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

When it is in the criticism section, yes it's a criticism. When it's in the position statement section, it's a fact. The AMA has not recognized it. It doesn't say "the AMA has not recognized it because it is worthless", which would be a criticism. It certainly implies a flaw in PAS that prevents it from being recognized, but I am quite sure it is within both the letter and the spirit of WP:MORALIZE and will strongly oppose any efforts to remove it. There's no advocacy POV that I can see in the lead, but there is a discussion of it's lack of recognition and respect in the relevant legal and scientific areas. Since much of the body is focussed on criticism of the topic, this is totally appropriate. I think I'm about done discussing this issue, either drop it or seek out some form of dispute resolution. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"It certainly implies a flaw in PAS that prevents it from being recognized, but I am quite sure it is within both the letter and the spirit of WP:MORALIZE and will strongly oppose any efforts to remove it."

I am neutral on whether it is included or not. It must be attributed if it is included as a criticism and need not be attributed if it is presented as an official position.

The fact the PAS is not yet recognized by the APA implies no flaw in PAS. To me the fact that the AMA does not recognize PAS is hardly more significant than the fact that the American Dental Association does not recognize PAS. PAS is a psychological syndrome. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

But your opinions about what is significant are irrelevant. Multiple independent reliable sources have found it significant to mention that the AMA has not recognized it. That's our measure here, not your analysis. If you feel you that we are wrong, please seek dispute resolution --Slp1 (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Not recognized by the AMA" is obviously criticism to me and as such deserves attribution, but this is the tiniest flaw in what stands now as a very biased article. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Gardner did not say that he assumed

"...Gardner assumed this meant the disorder had become widespread."

The source does not state that Gardner assumed that the disorder had become widespread. Gardner stated that it was obvious that the disorder is widespread. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

The disorder is under dispute, and may not exist, asserting that it is widespread is inappropriate. I'll have a look at the source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. This is as close as I can get it to the wording of the article without placing undue weight on Gardner and the reality/acceptance of PAS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence for "took this to mean." Michael H 34 (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

From Gardner, 2001 "Initially, many were dubious about the existence of the disorder, some even considering my descriptions a caricature. Generally, the dubious were those who were not directly involved in working with families embroiled in child-custody disputes. By the late 1980s I was no longer hearing this criticism, so obvious was it that the disorder was widespread." Since Gardner is not backed up by much scholarly research, since PAS is considered dubious if not pseudoscientific, since his opinion is not commensurate with the scholarly majority, it can't be portrayed as a fact, only his opinion. We could put "Gardner's opinion was that the disorder had become widespread", but it's essentially the same thing. Lacking the evidence to be considered a real medical diagnosis, it can't be said that PAS became or was widespread. It's clearly his opinion, and not the opinion of the relevant body of experts. Quite the opposite, the relevant body of experts for the most part consider it bunk. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Your assertions are no justification for adding your opinion on why Gardner concluded what he did. There is no evidence for "took this to mean." Michael H 34 (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

The source, written in the first person, is clearly an opinion piece, reflecting Gardner's views, opinions and analysis. If this remark is to be quoted, it must be attributed as G's view in some way, in part because the comment is so clearly off the mark; the syndrome has been widely and extensively criticized ever since he coined the term, as everybody (even those who support the syndrome) admit. --Slp1 (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never asserted that Gardner's statements need not be attributed. I objected to WLU's addition of his unsourced suppositions to the article about why Gardner stated what he did. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Notes

• Warshak: [48]
• Bone: [49]
• Bone2: [50] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael H 34 (talk • contribs)

Just a quick comment regarding the reliability of these guys, though I realize that this section is framed as notes, and has no particular suggestion that this is proposed material for inclusion. Warshak is clearly a reliable source, and we can definitely use the information provided. I am, however, very doubtful indeed that the Bone material meets the grade as self-published material by an recognized expert in the field. WP:SPS Bone is not apparently a lawyer, psychologist or psychiatrist, (not sure what his PhD is in at all) [51], and apparently gave up his mental health counsellor license rather than face disciplinary charges from his professional association in Florida where he lives and works. [52][53]. I also can't find any sign that he has been published in any relevant peer-reviewed journals etc per WP:SPS. What do others think? --Slp1 (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Warshak is reliable (and a better link is already embedded as a PDF but still not as nice as one linked from the actual journal). Bone 1 is not reliable (it's Bone's personal webpage; if he's not publishing it in reliable sources then it's not admissable here because that means he can't get scholarly support for his ideas from peer reviewers). Bone 2 is quite, quite dubious - google scholar doesn't turn up anything for Parental Alienation Syndrome: Examining the Validity Amid Controversy, with or without quotes. Either The Family Law Section isn't a journal, or it's a very, very low notability one. Bone 2 could be included if it can be demonstrated that The Family Law Section is in any way a reliable source (perhaps WP:RSN might have something to say). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I did a little further work on this. "The Commentator", where Bone 2 appeared, is the quarterly newsletter of the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar Association. There is an editor named, though the newsletter includes the disclaimer that "Statements of opinion or comments appearing herein are those of the authors and contributors and not of The Florida Bar or the Family Law Section." I'm not convinced newsletters of this sort meet the criteria for WP, but as WLU says, it might be worth asking for other opionions at RSN.--Slp1 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would cautiously allow for some use, but this would be a circumstance where attribution would be warranted without supporting or corroborating references (though in that case, I'd rather use the latter solely). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that attribution is warranted. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Peer review

"The theory is self-published, and has not been corroborated by peer-review."

This another criticism that is presented as fact. Proponents state that the theory has been corroborated by peer review. Michael H 34 (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

[54] Michael H 34 (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

April 21st edits

Problems with the following edits:

• [55] A synthesis is an OR issue, not an WP:NPOV one. This is also the lead, meant to summarize the body. PAS has been criticized for lacking a scientific basis, but was still cited in court cases. This strikes me as wholly appropriate to note in the lead.

The edit was required because the previously unattributed criticism included in the lead is the result of synthesis, is OR, is not NPOV, and is given undue weight. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

• [56] this is not attribution and misrepresents what Ackerman says (though the original needs to be reformulated anyway.

There are many sources that state that PAS has been evaluated in over 100 peer-reviewed articles. Ackerman's unattributed criticism was criticism of one evaluation of the literature. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

• [57] this strikes me as essentially the same wording rather than “clarity”

The edited wording is better for clarity because testimony to evaluate PAS is admissible in the US and elsewhere. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Micheal H 34

• [58] “Critics also state” is not attribution, it’s weasel wording. Warshak isn’t a “critic”, and from what I recall, this is a fairly hotly disputed topic (though I need to review which source I read this in).

Attribution is required. It is not "weasel wording." When the circuit court judge in Florida ruled that PAS passes the Frye test, Warshak provided expert witness testimony to support the judges ruling. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

• [59] this is not a POV heading, since it is a section about criticisms from a purely scientific perspective. If Gardner and proponents purport that PAS has scientific support, this section demonstrates that it does not. It’s not POV because you don’t like it.

The article had two sections for criticism and one subsection for a rebuttal. This is not neutral. Critics opinion was stated as fact without attribution. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

• [60] This makes it sound like PAS actually became widespread, when really it’s not even acknowledged or diagnosable, so it can’t become widespread. At best this should be “Gardner believed…” which acknowledges that ONLY GARDNER thought this, not anyone else.

"ONLY GARDNER thought this, not anyone else" I attributed Gardner's statement to Gardner. There is no source for your supposition. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

• [61] ugh, need a better wording than this

I strongly disagree with you. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

• [62] “Those who support the recognition of the existence of parental alienation syndrome” implies that PAS actually exists (which is debated and generally rejected) and that it merely needs to be recognized. The burden is on supporters to first prove that it exists before they can be said to “support its recognition”. PAAD needs significant work, and at best should be a see also. This is a run-around of the scientific and legal community, going straight for popular support. Popular support doesn’t mean it exists, witness witches and the inquisition.

Bernet states "the phenomenon of PAD is almost universally accepted by mental health professionals" [63]Michael H 34 (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

• [64] on a purely intellectual basis, this edit bugs me. It reads like “if the scientific community won’t accept PAS, then the legal community can be used to shoehorn it into existence”. The page needs to place the most emphasis on what the scholarly sources say, and less on the popular and populous opinions. The NYT is a good paper and a good source for the ‘’’popular’’’ ideas, but should not be the majority source for the ‘’’reality’’’ of PAS.

Attribution was provided for the view. These views are help by members of the mental health community including Dr. Amy Baker, who has written a book the damage incurred by children who have PAS. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

• [65] this keeps piquing me – “while other [generic category] state” is NOT attribution, it is weasel wording. Attribution is “John Smith states that…” or “the APA stated in a press release that…” Labelling and lumping people into “critics” and supporters” is not appropriate or good practice, and it certainly isn’t attribution as Wikipedia uses it.

Attribution is the path for writing a NPOV article. Stating opinions as if they were facts is the path for writing a POV article. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

• [66] The “reordering for better flow” placed the criticisms far, far further down the page than they should be. PAS fundamentally is a source of debate and ‘’is not accepted by the majority of appropriately expert scholars’’. Therefore, criticisms should come ‘’before’’ application, position statements, and certainly before “use in the courts”. If it’s purportedly a medical or scientific condition and diagnosis, it should be criticized as such rather than using the court appearances first. To do otherwise is undue weight on the idea that it has credibility ‘’because’’ it has appeared in the courts first.

"PAS fundamentally is a source of debate and ‘’is not accepted by the majority of appropriately expert scholars’’." That is opinion and I'm not surprised that critics would make these claims, but we have a source that states that PAS is universally accepted by mental health professionals. The criticisms were given undue weight. Also, the reordering provided better flow because the DSM is defined and then reference is made to it. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

• [67] this isn’t a “fix”, it’s a wording preference. This is a fix.

also known as was repeated, so it was a fix. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Overall there’s a lot I don’t like, but the page itself needs a thorough re-write. I’m going to re-read WP:CRITICISM and WP:CONTROVERSY – since there is a fair amount written on the topic in a fair number of reliable sources, navigating will be tricky. I think we have to start with the most recent, most reliable sources and work from there, cautiously using earlier sources and attributions to produce a good article. In other words, this is going to take a lot of reading and attention (particularly on my part as I’ll admit that I don’t have a tremendous amount of familiarity here) to get a good article going.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=6bmBtQ2Zl-IC&pg=PA83#PPA83,M1 – syndrome criticism, second column, also good for FMS. As a 2006 book from Oxford university press, this is authoritative as far as I’m concerned. The page should accord with what is said in this volume. Pages 83 and 219-221 WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is some valid reliably sourced concerns regarding the evaluation of PAS in the source you cited above. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Recent Edits

Unfortunately, I need to be brief, but I would like to express my opinions about some of the recent edits to this article.

• It is good to see that some balance has been added to the Lead about the acceptance (or lack of it) of PAS in custody cases. Given the evidence in the body of the article, I don't think this yet goes far enough and the lead is not of NPOV in this matter.
• On the same subject, I don't see any reason for the division into subsections for various countries. There is not enough information about the different countries to justify this at present.
• I strongly disagree with the "demotion" of the origin of PAS as an explanation for the reported increase in child abuse allegations. This needs to be placed before the information about how PAS doesn't apply when child abuse hasn't taken place for logical purposes.
• I also strongly object of the weasel word use of 'critics' to marginalize and devalue criticisms of the so-called syndrome. A survey suggests that the vast majority of recent academic sources (legal, psychological, medical) are critical of the "syndrome" in one way or the other. We must follow the mainstream view per NPOV, and present that view (along with the apparent minority view that the syndrome exists) with the appropriate weight.
• The article is highly disjointed and needs a major rewrite. We must stick to the highest quality, most recent sources about this topic, and reflect those.
• More later --Slp1 (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's black...It's white... may be lyrics from a Michael Jackson album, but a reception section with statements like these will only confuse readers.

Critics say it's black... Proponents say it's white... not only is clearer to the reader, but also keeps the article neutral through attribution.

Attribution is not "weasel", but allows the article to maintain a NPOV.

Gardner himself stated that PAS is used as an exculpatory legal maneuver, and when he states this, he is a critic. Removing attribution for the critics but not for those who support the legal recognition of PAS would violate the NPOV policy. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Our readers are not stupid, and I think you can only say "we might confuse them" if we mean "they might arrive at the wrong conclusion". This is a theory, ostensibly medical, legal and psychological. Theories get criticized, robustly, and splitting comments or sources into "critics" or "proponents" gives the idea that the criticisms are ideological and partisan rather than scientific and empirical. Which is another reason I object to the "critics" and "proponents" wording (in addition to being jerky, choppy, poor style and painful to read). Unlike say, the political Father's Rights Movement, this purports to be a scientific claim, meaning it opens itself to scientific critique. I think readers are at greater risk of disliking reading the painful prose of the article than they are of being "confused". They can't be confused by the facts, which are the APA, APA, AMA and DSM do not recognize PAS, and that many, many people have criticized PAS on scientific grounds. So long as the criticisms come from reliable sources, and particularly if they come from multiple reliable sources, we don't need a "critics/proponents" argument. Feminist criticisms should be attributed, because that is not evidence-based, and arguments coming solely from Garnder should probably be attributed. But not everything to magical, invisible, inexplicable "critics" who make valid points about PAS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)