Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:46, 6 May 2009

Psychology Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Archives

Start to April, 2009

Winerip

I've removed "Winerip" completely - every instance was as a duplication or in places where a scholarly publication should be used. There are lots of reliable books and articles to be used, the news paper is much more tenuous. Per WP:MEDRS, if a claim is found here it is better attributed to the direct source rather than popular press. Could still be used for "social claims". WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Winerip, ML (2007-09-23). "When Ties to a Parent Are Cut by the Other". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-12-20.

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) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe

I have put a note on user talk:Jack-A-Roe, asking him if he's interested in contributing to the page. I chose JAR for a couple reasons - he is interested in issues related to child abuse, he understands the need for high-quality sources, he has a lot of experience working on heavily contested pages, and he frequently disagrees with me. I have no idea if he will comment or not but if he does I am sure it will improve the page. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Poland

Someone added the following to the page. I assume the external links are meant to be references (otherwise I would remove it per WP:PROVEIT) but it'll take a bit of time to tease out what the section actually means, and figure out if the references support it. They look to be blog posts from the URL, in which case they are not reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Poland is a single country and one of the sparse countries in the world, where are keeping research on PAS. Polish forensic experts point out the first version of phenomena determined as PAS was inexact, but confirm occuring of that phenomena, in the same breath. They maintain the wider research on the problem are necessary.

Polish scientist Maciej Wojewódka indicates unscientific reasons of PAS criticise as errors of its first version, faulty proposition of solution of the problem, judiciary corruption and subjective private interests.

• http://kpor.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=6&Itemid=39
• http://kpor.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=5&Itemid=40

Without actual references, and references I can read, this should not be included in the page. A limited number of polish references could be used, ideally a review article or two, but we would need confirmation by a polish-speaking editor. These do look like blog entries, with no indication that Maciej Wojewódka is sufficiently well-known to have his blog stand on its own merits. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Polish-speaking admin Piotrus if he would do us the favour of commenting or integrating based on the Polish sources. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a blog, but a site of some NGO (or to be correct, if it is a blog, it is the outlet of this NGO). Some of their articles are even referenced. I have no idea how reliable they are as I now next to nothing about this subject. I did some google research on Maciej Wojewódka, he doesn't seem to be an academic, nor does he seem to have a PhD title; he is mentioned as "mister Maciej Wojewódka from KPOR NGO". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm comfortable with just leaving it out then. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Notes

Michael H 34

That could be considered a reliable source if published in a journal somewhere. If so, this could work as a link of convenience, provided it could be verified against the original. Presentations, even academic presentations are generally not reliable sources except for fringe theories and other items that have little scholarly interest. This page has lots of references, many in scholarly books, so if Faulkner's piece is just a presentation it is of extremely limited use. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Attribution tags

I've added {{who}} throughout the reception, for the "critics" and "proponents" statements. I do not think "critics" or "proponents" gives proper attribution, I think it's weasel wording. Ergo, I would like to see how the use of "critics" and "proponents" can be resolved properly without giving a, what I consider absurd, list of the five people who published books or articles supporting this point, or three supporting this one. I think a better formulation would be "criticisms include" or something similar. When multiple reliable sources converge on a single interpretation and criticism, I think it can flatly be called a criticism without needing to label the people providing it as "critics", which implies they disagree because they dislike the theory or its author, rather than because they dislike the evidence. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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.

Attribution is not "weasel", but allows the article to maintain a NPOV. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Please thread your posts. If Gardner is stating a fact, he's neither a critic nor a proponent. And naming Gardner specifically is a whole lot different than naming "critics". WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"When multiple reliable sources converge on a single interpretation and criticism, I think it can flatly be called a criticism without needing to label the people providing it as "critics", which implies they disagree because they dislike the theory or its author, rather than because they dislike the evidence."

There is a convergence of opinion? Bernet states that PAS is "universally accepted" by mental health experts. I call the "need to label" attribution, and it allows the article to maintain a NPOV.

Critics state implies nothing about why the critic states the criticism. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael, do you have the Bernet article or are you just reading the abstract? Number one, it is totally inappropriate to cite from an abstract without checking the article for reasons detailed below; Number two, the abstract actually says that "the phenomenon of PAD is almost universally accepted by mental health professionals." And indeed if you check the article proper, you will note that Bernet has his own formulation of PAS, that when he says "phenomenon of PAD" he means "the general idea" and well, I'll leave the "almost" to speak for itself.

I agree with WLU that the "attribution" you often argue for it articles is not in keeping with the principles and practices of WP. You call them critics (for obvious reasons, I'm sorry to say); others call them law professors, psychologists etc. Which do you really think is of NPOV? This is why "Critics" is a word to avoid, and specifically commented about in terms of POV editing at the Featured Article Candidacy of the Roman Catholic Church, It is just not acceptable to marginalize mainstream opinions in this fashion.--Slp1 (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Almost is key, as are the four references that state PAS has been extensively criticized (of which Bernet is one). When a single source says one thing, but multiple others disagree, we have to use editorial judgement to decide which to represent. Any source can be cherry-picked or quote mined for support of a single point, or a group of sources can be as well skewed or ignored to give undue weight. Unless there are a host of supporting sources lingering somewhere, the evidence speaks rather clearly that the mental health community most certainly does not universally agree that PAS is acceptable. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Time to stop editing and start discussing

I strongly, strongly suggest that you both cease editing this article, and start discussing edits here on the talkpage. This is totally unproductive. If this goes on I will apply for page protection to force an end to the edit warring. --Slp1 (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try to restore a NPOV to the article at another time. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I'd say apply for page protection. It'll be the wrong version no matter what. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that the current version is horrible, so yes you are right about the wrong version!! I'll be going to the library on Friday and will pick up more recent books and papers on the subject. And unfortunately, Michael H, from what I've seen, I'm frankly unconvinced that your version of NPOV is actually NPOV when it comes down to looking at the highest quality, most reliable sources for this topic.--Slp1 (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've requested page protection WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I've archived much of the page, leaving the discussions from the past couple days. Pull out old items if they are still relevant, or start a new discussion. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Reception

The APA, AMA and DSM's failure to acknowledge PAS should be in the reception section, quite clearly in my mind. Acceptance, rejection or indifference is part of the reception of PAS far more than it is history, and must certianly be included in the page if it's referenced by so many sources (as well as making intuitive sense. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Repetition should be avoided. I think that "no position" and "concerns about its application" is given more weight in the History section. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Where is there repetition? The lead does not count. Right now the AMA is not mentioned anywhere except the lead, which is inappropriate. And I think you are clearly wrong in this. It is not historical that the APAs and AMA don't recognize it, it is current. And they would be the main deciding bodies for whether there is merit to officially recognizing PAS (particularly given the APiatricA publishes the DSM). These are the academic and governing bodies responsible for adjudicating on insurance claims, establishing expertise and accreditation, governing their professions and dealing with research. How is it not appropriate for their lack of recognition to be in the reception section? Repetition should be avoided is a nonsequiter since the claim is not currently repeated, and the lead never counts as repetition. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In my view, no position should not be in the reception, but can be added to the overview. I will do it myself, but will seek your agreement first. The American Psychological Association is included in the lead and in the history (where it has higher weight than the reception). Michael H 34 (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Reliability

Why is "Jennifer Hoult states that Gardner's writings published in both peer reviewed journals and legal decisions, PAS lacks both validity and reliability" attributed to three sources, only one of which is actually Hoult and the other two predate her by several years? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed this. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Commentators

"Commentators" is no better than "critics". The people making these criticisms are not Joe off the street, or Mike Hunt who owns a house. These are scholars and experts publishing in the appropriate journals and scholarly press. They could better be labelled "experts" or the criticisms simply called criticisms. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The reception section starts with "PAS has been extensively criticized by members of legal and mental health community" even though PAS as a phenomena is "universally accepted by members of the mental health community" according to Bernet in his article published in the American Journal of Family Therapy. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

• Start-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Start-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Misplaced Pages requested images of medical subjects