Talk:Richard A. Gardner

message: "Gardner's contributions to the field of general psychotherapy with children, psychotherapy with children of divorce, and custody evaluations are widely, although cited."
Something's missing from this sentence fragment. Someone who knows what's what, please fix it.Parakkum 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing a bit

message: an anti-gardner site link, links to liznotes which is obviously biased towards sole custody of kids to the the mother, but more than that, the essay by Judith M. Simon, is a reprint of an essay from "Swans".  Visit Swans, it is not much more than a blog online since 1996.  They publish only on the web, there is no peer review.  Simon is herself not notable to the casual googler (that is, she can't be found or identified as the bottom of her article claims, as a health and science writer), and she has no wiki page to back her up.  Her "article" is entirely unsourced.
I am going to remove the link from the main wiki page and place it here "for storage" 
* A Self-Made Man Suggests that Creative Therapeutics is a vanity press.
71.39.78.68 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  His own words: "Fact: I do own Creative Therapeutics, Inc., and since 1978 I have published most (but not all) of my books through Creative Therapeutics". So the above attacks on Simon, including putting the word article in "scare quotes" seems somewhat unfair. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The link to the judith .m simon anti-gardner article "A self-made man" at liznotes is not much more than a blog posting 

message: It's important to mention this document which has been prepared to provide corrections for certain misrepresentations and misperceptions of some of Gardner's contributions. 
He explained : "Some of these originated from conflicts in the legal arena, where attorneys frequently select out-of-context material in order to enhance their positions in courts of law. This is the nature of the adversary system, and it is one of the causes of the controversy that sometimes surround my contributions. Some of these misperceptions and misrepresentations have become so widespread that I considered it judicious to formulate this statement."
*Misperceptions versus facts about Richard A. Gardner,
*The American Journal of Family Therapy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garpsy (talk • contribs) 07:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation Versus Facts About the Contributions of Richard A. Gardner, M.D. 

message: I honestly can't see a need to include the details of his suicide, no matter that we apparently have a copy of the autopsy report.  Is there a reason to include them that I'm not seeing?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The facts that he committed suicide and that he suffered severe chronic pain are relevant but other specific details of his death are not relevant. (Autopsy reports are may be relevant for entries on suicide methods.) He had an illustrious career with great influence, continuing impact and controversy, but he was not a public figure. I collapsed the Suicide section into Personal life and death. The whole entry needs much editing based on primary sources - i.e. his website (web archived in 2007 and also partly into RA Warshak's site at the request of Gardner's family), his many writings and works, and authority sources.-Yohananw (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide details 

message: The segment that says "Real science states that if a mother or father attempts to alienate a child, the child will want to see the other parent more." sounds like an opinion or marketing piece. Science is not an talking thing (e.g. a person or a book) and thus unable to state anything.
Saying "real science" only diminishes credibility as it obscures who is the one actually making the claim. Gjvnq (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad wording: Real Science