View source for User:Frobozz1/sandbox

{{User sandbox}}
<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->

{{Diff2|700855185|old PA ref}}

[[Special:Diff/1012859434/1012850568|Revert as of 18:35, 18 March 2021 - Slp!]]
[[Special:Diff/1012818938/1012812902|Revert as of 14:03, 18 March 2021 - Slp!]]
[[Special:Diff/1012687412/1012655276|Revert as of 19:19, 17 March 2021 - Slp!]]
[[Special:Diff/1012630864/1012605589|Revert as of 13:09, 17 March 2021 - Arllaw]]
[[Special:Diff/1012572666/1012541586|Revert as of 03:04, 17 March 2021 - Arllaw]]
[[Special:Diff/1011932997/1011904652|Revert as of 17:38, 13 March 2021 - Arllaw]]
[[Special:Diff/1011821886/1011820139|Revert as of 01:04, 13 March 2021 - Arllaw]]
[[Special:Diff/1011622194/1011481718|Revert as of 22:34, 11 March 2021 - Arllaw]]
[[Special:Diff/1011450166/1011447206|Revert as of 23:30, 10 March 2021 - Slp!]]
[[Special:Diff/1011394628/1011388921|Revert as of 17:25, 10 March 2021 - Slp!]]



They are insistently [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources|disputing the reliability of apparently good sources]], erecting a wall of opposition to interested consensus. This prompted me to seek consensus on 
and attempt to get the book reliability judged on the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals|Reliable sources noticeboard]].



WHO classifies PA as Judicial term: https://reseauiml.wordpress.com/2020/02/23/world-health-organization-removes-parental-alienation-from-its-classification-index/

{{quote|Parental alienation has been removed from the ICD-11 classification as it is a judicial term and issue. Its inclusion for coding purposes in the ICD-11 will not contribute to valid or meaningful health statistics.}}

The '''second impeachment of President Donald Trump''', the [[List of presidents of the United States|45th]] [[president of the United States]], occurred on January 13, 2021, seven days before the [[Inauguration of Joe Biden|inauguration of his successor]]. It was the fourth [[Impeachments of presidents of the United States|Presidential impeachment]] and set several historical precedents. Although only passed by a slight margin of {{percent and number|232|429|suffix=&nbsp;yea votes of 429}} compared to President [[Impeachment of Andrew Johnson#Impeachment|Andrew Johnson's]] {{percent and number|126|173|suffix=&nbsp;yea votes of 173}},<ref name=Politico02242015AG>{{cite web|title=House votes to impeach Andrew Johnson, February 24, 1868 |last=Glass|first=Andrew |date=February 24, 2015 |url=https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/this-day-in-politics-115420 |website=politico.com |access-date=April 24, 2018}}</ref> this was the most bipartisan impeachment vote to date with {{percent and number|10|211|1|suffix=&nbsp;Republican}} representatives voting along with a first-ever unanimous {{percent and number|222|222|0|suffix=&nbsp;of Democratic}} representatives.<ref name=rollcall17 /><ref>{{cite web|last=Sheth|first=Sonam|date=January 14, 2021|title=Trump's 2nd impeachment is the most bipartisan in US history|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-second-impeachment-most-bipartisan-in-us-history-2021-1|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210114181717/https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-second-impeachment-most-bipartisan-in-us-history-2021-1|archive-date=January 14, 2021|access-date=January 25, 2021|website=[[Business Insider]]}}</ref> This was the fourth time articles passed to disqualify a person from office however all three previous disqualifications had impeached civil officers.<ref name=Vladeck>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/trump-impeachment-senate.html|title=Why Trump Can Be Convicted Even as an Ex-President|author1=[[Steve Vladeck]]|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=January 14, 2021}}</ref> Because the [[President of the United States#election|President is elected]] rather than [[Presidential Commission (United States)|commissioned]], this was the first time an [[Seat (legal entity)#Government|elected seat]] who has never held any [[Officer under the United States|office under the United States]] was voted to be disqualified from ever holding any office under the United States.

The [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] of the [[117th United States Congress|117th U.S. Congress]] adopted one article of [[Impeachment in the United States|impeachment]] against [[Donald Trump|Trump]] of "[[incitement of insurrection]]", alleging that the President incited the [[2021 storming of the United States Capitol|January 6 storming]] of the [[U.S. Capitol]]. These events were preceded by numerous unsuccessful alleged [[Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election|attempts by the President to overturn]] the [[2020 United States presidential election|2020 presidential election results]], as well as repeatedly asserting the election results were caused by "widespread [[voter fraud]]" relying on evidence seen to be meritless.<ref name="NPR Impeachment Resolution" />

Yes it is.<ref> {{USStatute|114|136|130|306|2016|March|18||}}</ref>
<!-- US Statute ({{USStatute|Congress|OrdinalLaw|Volume|Page|Year|Month|Day|BillType|BillNumber}}) -->
<!-- US Code {{USC2|25|13f|Tribal priority allocations in Alaska}}.  25 U.S.C. § 13f: Tribal priority allocations in Alaska -->

{{USC2|5|5132|Positions at level I}}


==Parental Alienation==
<ref name=:Whit>{{cite journal |last1=Whitcombe |first1=Sue |title=Psychopathology and the conceptualization of mental disorder: The debate around the inclusion of parental alienation in DSM-5. |journal=Counselling Psychology Review |date=2013 |volume=28 |issue=3 |pages=6–1 |url=http://parental-alienation-inc.com/articles/Article%204.pdf |access-date=30 October 2019}}</ref>{{Rp|page=142|q=Parental alienation, which most commonly occurs in the context of child custody disputes during and after parental separation, involves the “programming” of a child by one parent to denigrate the other “target” parent, in an effort to harm, damage, and destroy the relationship between a child and the target parent, whereby the target parent is demonized and undermined as a parent worthy of the child’s love and attention (Harman, Kruk, & Hines, In Press)}}
{{Rp|page=142|q=Parental alienating behaviors lie on a continuum, ranging from mild, subtle forms of badmouthing to more severe forms of aggression and coercive control that result in the child’s complete rejection and refusal of contact with the target parent.}}{{Rp|page=142|q=The arena of parental alienation is fraught with controversy, particularly regarding the question of whether parental alienation is a form of child abuse and family violence. Problems related to distinguishing among abuse, estrangement, and alienation, and to legal reforms and therapeutic interventions needed to address alienation, pose considerable challenges for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers}}{{Rp|page=143|q=Analysis of parental alienation research over the past decade reveals that parental
alienation is more common and debilitating for children and parents than was previously believed. Despite the views of those who doubt the concept itself, an emergent scientific consensus on the definition and prevalence of parental alienation and its effects on parents and children is emerging.}}{{Rp|page=143|q=parental alienation is recognized as a manifestation of three
disorders identified in the DSM-V (American Psychiatric Association, 2013): “Parent-Child
Relational Problem,” “Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress,” and “Child Psychological Abuse.” Parental alienation is related to two symptom clusters identified in the DSM: “impaired functioning in behavioral, cognitive, or affective domains” and “negative attributions of the other’s intentions, hostility toward or scapegoating of the other, and unwarranted feelings of estrangement” on the child’s part of the child.}}{{Rp|page=57|q=Some parents indoctrinate their children to fear or dislike the other parent, but they do not do it purposefully. Perhaps the custodial parent&mdash;the mother, for example&mdash;is an overly anxious individual who worries most of the day and communicates her anxiety to the child.}}{{Rp|page=115|q=Clear, Detailed, and Enforceable Orders. Due to the fact that such cases involve a great deal of conflict between the two parents, the court order needs to contain detailed and clear parameters as to where and when visits occur, the length of time, the location where the child will be picked up and dropped off, and the fact that the visits are not negotiable.}}
{{cite book
|last1=Lorandos
|first1=Demosthenes, Ph.D., J.D.
|title=Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals
|last2=Baker
|first2=Amy, Ph.D
|last3=Campbell
|first3=Terence, Ph.D.
|last4=Freeman
|first4=Bradley, M.D.
|last5=Lowrance
|first5=Hon. Michele, J.D.
|date=
|publisher=Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, LTD
|year=2013
|isbn=978-0-398-08881-1
|editor1-last=Slovenko
|editor1-first=Ralph, B.E., LL.B., M.A., Ph.D.
|location=Springfield, Il
|language=en-us
|lccn=2013011346
|editor2-last=Bernet
|editor2-first=William, M.D.
|editor3-last=Sauber
|editor3-first=S. Richard
|display-editors=2}}<ref name=":0">{{cite book
|last1=Lorandos
|first1=Demosthenes, Ph.D., J.D.
|title=Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals
|last2=Baker
|first2=Amy, Ph.D
|last3=Campbell
|first3=Terence, Ph.D.
|last4=Freeman
|first4=Bradley, M.D.
|last5=Lowrance
|first5=Hon. Michele, J.D.
|date=
|publisher=Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, LTD
|year=2013
|isbn=978-0-398-08881-1
|editor1-last=Slovenko
|editor1-first=Ralph, B.E., LL.B., M.A., Ph.D.
|location=Springfield, Il
|language=en-us
|lccn=2013011346
|editor2-last=Bernet
|editor2-first=William, M.D.
|editor3-last=Sauber
|editor3-first=S. Richard
|display-editors=2}}</ref>

{{Contradict-inline|page=Talk:Pigeon|section=New sources on genetics}}

::::If there is nothing else, I see nothing offensive about the content suggested. That is my opinion. Maybe you can find better sources to make your point, and fix it again at that time.
::::Three sources are presented. Let's begin once more with humbly acknowledging that the truth of what the sources are saying is not in our purview. This article especially needs us to be open. It is after all a social science, in part, and a legal topic, in part.
:::* A book is written by persons who advocate for the topic of the book. How novel! (pardon the pun). But about the book: '''Is it reliably sourced? Yes, or no.''' It would appear that the book is used in many places already and you have posted that is is RS; questioning only prominence of the opinions. [[WP:RS]] does not regard prominence, nor does [[WP:MAINSTREAM]] care about "minority" as a measure of numbers of persons authoring the opinions: That logic is circular. The citation states that the majority opinion (APA) has recognized (not "diagnosed") a thing &ndash;"the concept of PA", written by "three people"; thus the opinion is "minority." This does not follow. It becomes necessary to offer by citation that a majority opinion claims the APA said that "the concept" is ''not'' in the book; by which you will have created a notable debate about what is in the book, and created room for even more content. 
:::* There is now the technical bit about the [[Diagnostic code|DSM codes not being diagnostic]] (as the ones on our Wiki page are not?). Well then, [https://thriveworks.com/blog/every-dsm-5-diagnosis/ there is a good deal of the Internet which needs its language cleaned]. The correct chapter in the DSM-5 at print was "Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention." This is a pedantic argument for exclusion. The source uses common language jargon vice the technical term of art. This is easily explained but hardly necessary. Being "factually wrong," is not a criteria an editor is to judge. It becomes the burden of the editor to locate a citation that states that it is "factually wrong," and then [[WP:FIXIT]]. So we move along to this: '''Is the citation correctly representing the source?''' In a word, yes. Certainly there are snippets to be found which do not say "parental alienation" was coded into the DSM-5 but the other snippet quoted exactly does in fact say "parental alienation ''is recognized'' as a manifestation of three disorders identified in the DSM-V." On this resource alone this discussion has not found cause to delete the entire section discussing the DSM-5; the citation is reliably sourced and verifiable. All elements for inclusion are met. But let's see the other sources.
:::* The Journal of the Judicial Power of the State of Nuevo Leon is [[WP:RSLAW]] and not [[WP:RSMED]]. Granted. It makes a claim of recognition under law and no more.
:::* For the sake of completeness, the "Whitcomb" article is sought to be excluded on what appears to be failed verification grounds. Well certainly you have a point that Whitcomb, whose exact passage is copied into the article, knew only the names of the disorders and not the codes. But the article did accurately include the names, and then appended the [[Diagnostic codes]] from the other sources. Is that [[WP:SYNTH]]? Maybe removing the codes from the list would [[WP:FIXIT]]. I see that as trivial personally, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not called for here.
:::* There is not an argument within any citation here that asserts the APA has excluded "the concept" of PA from the manual, so this feels very much [[WP:MAINSTREAM]]. Can we find anything within Wikipedia policy that the content warrants omission?
::::If there is nothing else, I see nothing offensive about the content suggested. That is my opinion. Maybe you can find better sources to make your point, and fix it again at that time.

==df==
[[User:Frobozz1/PA-design]]

[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history at [[:Article (like Parental Alienation?)]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|the bold, revert, discuss cycle]] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]].  In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. 

'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period.  Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.  Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.{{Break}}Additional '''things to say''' text<!-- Template:uw-3rr -->