Talk:Parental alienation

message: The article states:  ″The psychological community has not accepted parental alienation as a diagnosable mental condition″ but the linked source says in its conclusions: ″There is almost no dispute among mental health professionals who work with children of divorced parents that PA occurs in many children whose parents engage in persistent, intense conflict.″ ″The inclusion of PA in the next editions of DSM and ICD will facilitate research regarding this mental condition, will strengthen the awareness and understanding of clinicians for PA″. How is it possible? This looks like an abuse of the source. Twilight 15:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know, first I'd like to understand how this was possible. Who would find a source, and then report in the article the opposite of what it says? Is this normal or malicious behaviour? Is there a policy against it? Should it be reported somewhere? Sorry I have been away from wikipedia for a long time.  Twilight 08:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No opinion on this specific claim, but as for the broader concern – this kind of thing happens often and is a major problem for Wikipedia's verifiability. I frequently check the sources in Wikipedia articles, especially when I encounter a claim that seems surprising, and I often find that the cited sources don't support the claim. Sometimes this is because an editor misunderstood the source, sometimes it is because someone changed the article's prose without adding a new source, and sometimes it's because an editor intentionally added material that isn't supported by a source (maybe because they don't understand or don't agree with the verifiability policy.) If the article doesn't follow the sources, please correct it; this doesn't need an RFC unless others express disagreement. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

text: The source in question is an answer by PA proponents to their critics - what you're quoting is their objections to the rejection by the mainstream. I'm not the one who added it, but I believe what this source was intended to cite is their admission that their proposals to include it in the DSM and the ICD have been rejected. I replaced the citation with a more mainstream source that makes the point more directly. MrOllie (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The source you replaced it with is about the PAS. There is a separate article about it, this source is not relevant here. My understanding is there is a general consensus in the scientific community that parental alienation is not a syndrome, but at the same time ″There is almost no dispute among mental health professionals who work with children of divorced parents that parental alienation occurs in many children whose parents engage in persistent, intense conflict.″Twilight 13:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a quote by a fringe proponent in a non-peer reviewed article. And the source I added specifically addresses the same efforts to include PA in the DSM-5 that the Bernet source is about. In fact the source I added specifically talks about Bernet's position, for example  - MrOllie (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

text: The source you replaced it with is about the PAS. There is a separate article about it, this source is not relevant here. My understanding is there is a general consensus in the scientific community that parental alienation is not a syndrome, but at the same time ″There is almost no dispute among mental health professionals who work with children of divorced parents that parental alienation occurs in many children whose parents engage in persistent, intense conflict.″Twilight 13:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring the source, there is big difference between "parental alienation occurs", and "a diagnoseable mental condition".  Spots occur, but spots are not a diagnoseable condition. Anger occurs, but anger is not a diagnoseable condition. Happiness occurs, but is not a diagnoseable condition. I hope that helps. Slp1 (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

text: (randomly invited by a bot) A mental condition is not diagnosable if it isn't listed in the DSM. The statement in the introduction is accurate. There is no contradiction. Jojalozzo (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not diagnosable under the DSM or the ICD. As for the change, the text of the article remains correct, and the new citation should resolve the question of whether it's properly supported by the references. Arllaw (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm pro-PA, but if there is debate, then leave it out for this reason: There is too much back and forth in this article. Right from the beginning, each paragraph begins with somebody says this, this and that but ends with somebody else saying that, that and this or these guys claim bla bla bla,but it's unproven, or whatever. There's an almost comical rhythm to it. Call it "Ode to the Disfunction of the Behavioral Science Community". Speaking on behalf of the average person, this whole article is a pointless mess. Thudpuckers (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC Parts of the article state the opposite of the source they quote 

message: Wikipedia is a place for average people to gain an understanding of a given topic. This article begins with "Parental alienation is a theorized process through which a child..... bla bla bla." To the average person, that means Parental Alienation is nothing more than psycho-babble. (The awkward wording of the last sentence in the first paragraph wouldn't pass muster in 8th grade English.) The rest of the article pretty much amounts to point vs counterpoint, confirming the impression from the opening sentence. There's also a section telling people how to use PA for nefarious purposes in court. 
I understand some claims about this subject are contested. But I think the vast majority of the Scientific Community agrees Parental Alienation occurs and that it can have devasting effects. Yet somehow, that part doesn't come across in any meaningful way. Frankly, I think the whole article needs to be re-written, but for starters, can we remove the word "theorized" from the first sentence? Thudpuckers (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We need sourcing. What you think the scientific community agrees about might be correct, or it might be incorrect. We can only change the article based on reliable sources - we cannot act on personal impressions. See WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:V for details. Our hands really are tied here based on what the available sources say. Find us some peer-reviewed scientific journals that support that there is a scientific consensus (not just a couple of single papers who might be a vocal minority) on this and you will see the article change very quickly. MrOllie (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

text: The mental health community recognizes that people can become estranged from each other, and within that context that children can become estranged from their parents, a form of family estrangement. The issue with this subject is that "parental alienation" is not a mere description of a child's becoming estranged from a parent, but attempts to define a specific form of estrangement in which fault for the estrangement is ascribed to one parent. Proponents of the theories of fault-based parental alienation have not yet convinced the mental health community at large or any major scientific or mental health organization to adopt their theories. Arllaw (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph. 

message: parental involvement on academic performance 112.209.15.203 (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you can better explain this issue, and how it relates to the article. Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  parental involvement on academic performance