Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Opinion, for starters

Please remember that the medicalization of deviant behaviour gives way to billable hours and clinic/medication sales. An entire industry is founded on ADHD, with both successes and failures in reaching its audience of either the presumably afflicted and the obviously infirmed. It was no small feat to include the disorder/disease in a DSM coding manual, much the same as obesity and it's resultant weight loss clinic reimbursals. Disease moves money. (Just my legal/medical insight, born out of years of actual practice. Thanks.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.10.49 (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that hyperactivity is a genetic trait

From "Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Nature, Course, Outcomes, and Comorbidity," by Russell A. Barkley, Ph.D.:

"Genetic Factors Evidence for a genetic basis to this disorders comes from three sources: family studies, twin studies, and, most recently, molecular genetic studies identifying individual candidate genes. Again, nearly all of this research applies to the Combined Type of ADHD.

Family Aggregation Studies. For years, researchers have noted the higher prevalence of psychopathology in the parents and other relatives of children with ADHD. Between 10 to 35 percent of the immediate family members of children with ADHD are also likely to have the disorder with the risk to siblings of the ADHD children being approximately 32 percent (Biederman et al., 1992; Biederman, Faraone, Keenan, et al., 1990; Pauls, 1991; Welner et al., 1977). Even more striking, research shows that if a parent has ADHD, the risk to the offspring is 57 percent (Biederman, Faraone, Mick, et al., 1995). Thus, ADHD clusters significantly among the biological relatives of children or adults with the disorder, strongly implying a hereditary basis to this condition. Subsequently, these elevated rates of disorders also have been noted in African-American ADHD samples (Samuel et al., 1999) as well as in ADHD girls compared to boys (Faraone et al., 2000).

These studies of families further suggest that ADHD with CD may be a distinct familial subtype of ADHD. By separating the group of ADHD children into those with and without conduct disorder (CD), it has been shown that the conduct problems, substance abuse, and depression in the parents and other relatives are related more to the presence of CD in the ADHD children than to ADHD itself (August & Stewart, 1983; Biederman, Faraone, Keenan, et al., 1992; Faraone, Biederman, et al., 1995; Faraone, Biederman, Mennin, Russell, & Tsuang, 1998; Lahey et al., 1988). Rates of hyperactivity or ADHD remain high even in relatives of the group of ADHD children without CD (Biederman, Faraone, Keenan, et al., 1992) but depression and antisocial spectrum disorders are most likely to appear in the comorbid group. Using sib-pairs in which both siblings had ADHD, Smalley and colleagues have also recently supported this view through findings that CD significantly clusters among the families of only those sib-pairs having CD (Smalley et al., 2000).

Some research has also suggested that girls who manifest ADHD may need to have a greater genetic loading (higher family member prevalence) than do males with ADHD (Smalley et al., 2000). Faraone and colleagues also found some evidence in support of this view in that male siblings from families with one affected child were more likely to have ADHD than were female siblings from these families (Faraone et al., 1995). They also reported that the gender difference noted above for ADHD (3:1 males-to-females) may apply primarily to children from families in which either the child or a parent has antisocial behavior.

Interestingly, research by Faraone and Biederman (1997) suggests that depression among family members of children with ADHD may be a nonspecific expression of the same genetic contribution that is related to ADHD. This is based on their findings that family members of children with ADHD are at increased risk for major depression while individuals having major depression have first-degree relatives at increased risk for ADHD. Even so, as noted above, the risk for depression among family members is largely among those children having ADHD with CD.

Adoption Research.

Another line of evidence for genetic involvement in ADHD has emerged from studies of adopted children. Cantwell (1975) and Morrison and Stewart (1973) both reported higher rates of hyperactivity in the biological parents of hyperactive children than in adoptive parents having such children. Both studies suggest that hyperactive children are more likely to resemble their biological parents than their adoptive parents in their levels of hyperactivity. Yet, both studies were retrospective and both failed to study the biological parents of the adopted hyperactive children as a comparison group (Pauls, 1991). Cadoret and Stewart (1991) studied 283 male adoptees and found that if one of the biological parents had been judged delinquent or to have an adult criminal conviction, the adopted away sons had a higher likelihood of having ADHD. A later study (van den Oord, Boomsma, & Verhulst, 1994) using biologically related and unrelated pairs of international adoptees identified a strong genetic component (47 percent of the variance) for the Attention Problems dimension of the Child Behavior Checklist, a rating scale commonly used in research on ADHD. More recently, a comparison of the families of adopted ADHD children to those living with their biological parents and to a control group also showed the same pattern of an elevated prevalence of ADHD among just the biological parents of the ADHD children (6% vs. 18% vs. 3% respectively) (Sprich, Biederman, Crawford, Mundy, & Faraone, 2000). Thus, like the family association studies discussed earlier, results of adoption studies point to a strong possibility of a significant hereditary contribution to hyperactivity.

Twin Studies. Since the last edition of this text, the number of twin studies of ADHD and its underlying behavioral dimensions has increased markedly. More exciting has been the striking consistency across all of these studies. This research strategy provides a third avenue of evidence for a genetic contribution to ADHD. But it also provides a means of testing any competing environmental theories of the disorder (e.g., that ADHD is due to poor parenting, adverse family life, excessive TV viewing, etc.). That is because twin studies can not only compute the proportion of variance in a trait that is genetically influenced (heritability), but also the proportion that results from common or shared environment (things twins and siblings have in common growing up in the same family) and that which results from unique environment (all non-genetic factors or events that are unique or specific to one child and not to others in the family) (Plomin, Defries, McClearn, & Rutter, 1997).

Early research on ADHD using twins looked only at twin concordance (likelihood of twins sharing the same disorder) and did not compute these estimates of heritability, shared, and unique environment. These early studies demonstrated a greater agreement (concordance) for symptoms of hyperactivity and inattention between monozygotic (MZ) compared to dizygotic twins (DZ) (O'Connor, Foch, Sherry, & Plomin, 1980; Willerman, 1973). Studies of very small samples of twins (Heffron, Martin, & Welsh, 1984; Lopez, 1965) found complete (100%) concordance for MZ twins for hyperactivity and far less agreement for DZ twins. For instance, Gilger, Pennington, and DeFries (1992) found that if one twin was diagnosed as ADHD, the concordance for the disorder was 81 percent in MZ twins and 29 percent in DZ twins. Sherman, McGue, and Iacono (1997) found that the concordance for MZ twins having ADHD (mother identified) was 67 percent versus 0 percent for DZ twins.

Later research has computed heritability and environmental contributions to ADHD. One such study of a large sample of twins (570) found that approximately 50 percent of the variance in hyperactivity and inattention in this sample was due to heredity while 0-30 percent may have been environmental (Goodman & Stevenson, 1989). The relatively limited number of items assessing these two behavioral dimensions, however, may have reduced the sensitivity of the study to genetic effects. Later and even larger twin studies have found an even higher degree of heritability for ADHD, ranging from .75 to .97 (see Levy & Hay, 2001; Thapar, 1999 for reviews) (Burt, Krueger, McGue, Iacono, 2001; Coolidge et al., 2001; Gjone, Stevenson, & Sundet, 1996; Gjone, Stevenson, Sundet, & Eilertsen, 1996; Hudziak, 1997; Levy, Hay, McStephen, Wood, & Waldman, 1997; Rhee, Waldman, Hay, & Levy, 1995; Sherman, Iacono, & McGue, 1997; Sherman, McGue, & Iacono, 1997; Silberg et al., 1996; Thapar, Harrington, & McGuffin, 2001; Thapar, Hervas, & McGuffin, 1995; van den Oord, Verhulst, & Boomsma, 1996). Thus, twin studies indicate that the average heritability of ADHD is at least 0.80, being nearly that for human height (.80-.91) and higher than that found for intelligence (.55-.70). These studies consistently find little, if any, effect of shared (rearing) environment on the traits of ADHD while sometimes finding a small significant contribution for unique environmental events. In their totality, shared environmental factors seem to account for 0-6 percent of individual differences in the behavioral trait(s) related to ADHD. It is for this reason that I stated at the opening of this section that little attention would be given here to discussing purely environmental or social factors as involved in the causation of ADHD.

The twin studies cited above have also been able to indicate the extent to which individual differences in ADHD symptoms are the result of nonshared environmental factors. Such factors not only include those typically thought of as involving the social environment, but also all biological factors that are nongenetic in origin. Factors in the nonshared environment are those events or conditions that will have uniquely affected only one twin and not the other. Besides biological hazards or neurologically injurious events that may have befallen only one member of a twin pair, the nonshared environment also includes those differences in the manner in which parents may have treated each child. Parents do not interact with all of their children in an identical fashion and such unique parent-child interactions are believed to make more of a contribution to individual differences among siblings than do those factors about the home and child-rearing that are common to all children in the family. Twin studies to date have suggested that approximately 9-20 percent of the variance in hyperactive-impulsive-inattentive behavior or ADHD symptoms can be attributed to such nonshared environmental (nongenetic) factors (Levy et al., 1997; Sherman, Iacono et al., 1997; Silberg et al., 1996). A portion of this variance, however, must be attributed to the error of the measure used to assess the symptoms. Research suggests that the nonshared environmental factors also contribute disproportionately more to individual differences in other forms of child psychopathology than do factors in the shared environment (Pike & Plomin, 1996). Thus, if researchers were interested in identifying environmental contributors to ADHD, these studies suggest that such research should focus on those biological and social experiences that are specific and unique to the individual and are not part of the common environment to which other siblings have been exposed."

--Ss06470 03:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Dr. Biederman cited again and again and again above has written 294 (!) papers on ADHD. He is the most cited expert in this field. Here is an interview with him An interview with Joseph Biederman You might be interested to know about his relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. He has received research support from Shire, Lilly, Wyeth, Pfizer, Cephlon, Janssen, and Noven. He is on the speakers bureau for GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, Wyeth, Shire, Alza, and Cephalon. He is also on the advisory board for Lilly, Celltech and Shire, Noven and Alza/McNeil. May 18th 2000 Marcia Angell – who was then the editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine – wrote a surprisingly candid editorial titled, “Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” Angell referred to the “Faustian bargain” that takes place when scientists accept pharmaceutical money.She felt so strongly about it that she subsequently wrote a book The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It.

It should also be noted Richard Horton, editor of Lancet, England's most respected medical journal had this to say in the New York Review of Books (March 11, 2004) “The Dawn of McScience” “ Indeed, medical journals have become an important but under recognized obstacle to scientific truth-telling. Journals have devolved into information-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry. "

You have a lot of citations in your piece, which seems to be greatly valued here. Unfortunately, the question is whether the 294 articles (and many of the other citations) establish valid information or are part of an attempt to deceive the public

Proposed rename

I'd suggest renaming this page to Controversy about ADHD, as that title is much more encyclopedia-like than the current one, which sounds rather informal. Any objections? JulesH 08:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• ADHD controversy...?  Regards, David Kernow 17:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 08:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the current name of the article. 'Controversy' implies that the criticism of ADHD is not widespread. But an informal survey of laymen indicates that doubt and distrust of the diagnosis is widely accepted. The content of this article does not present a 'controversy' as such, but an assortment of criticisms. I propose that the article be renamed to 'Criticism of ADHD' or something similar. Is there any strong objection to renaming it 'Anti-ADHD' again? Oneismany 21:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think merely having an article called Controversy about ADHD sends a strong message that this is a major issue. I would rather keep the current name. -- Barrylb 01:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

'Controversy about' does seem more encyclopedia-like to me, vs. 'anti-ADHD,' which tends to be more ambiguous (opposed to having the condition? opposed to the name? opposed to the people? opposed to ...?). Calling it 'Criticism of' seems to me to face the same problem. The current name seems to be more standard. Library of Congress subject headings, for example, tend to have something like "Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder -- Controversial literature," so the term "controversy" seems to be a useful flag within the reference community. Lawikitejana 03:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "Controversy about ADHD" is good, but somehow the phrasing with the word "about" seems clunky. How about "Controversy over ADHD" or "Controversy regarding ADHD"? -- Tomlouie | talk 05:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) Apparently this proposal was implemented, but nobody brought up a basic issue for forks, that they be named such that they are readily recognized as subarticles in alphabetized indexes. This would suggest that this article be named something like Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies. Any opposition to this move?

By the way, trying to make the article represent "criticism" would be setting up a POV fork, not allowed. There are many kinds of controversy about ADHD, and much of it would not be labelled "criticism of ADHD," but of some theory associated with it, or treatment practice. This article, as well, should not be imbalanced toward critical POV, except that, of course, the level of notability necessary for a criticism to be mentioned is lower than with the main article. --Abd (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup required

I've tagged the article with 'cleanup' as there are a lot of shortcomings at the moment, IMO. While we have some good information here, I'd like to address the following:

• The long text on the picture. Some of this should be moved into the body of the article instead.
• The picture: can someone please indicate which brain (left or right) is the ADHD brain scan and which brain is 'non-ADHD' brain scan?
• The lack of citing of sources
• Apparently POV sections
• Lack of information concerning arguments against these theories
• Structure of the document. As I see it, there should be three main sections, one addressing theories that ADHD doesn't exist and is a misdiagnosis, one addressing concerns over labelling it as a pathology when it should perhaps be seen more as natural variations, and one addressing alternative theories of the origin of the condition. At the moment, all three of these are jumbled together and the flow of the article is hard to follow.

I don't really have time to work on this right now, but I'll be putting this article on my watchlist and heading back over here in the next few days to start on it. JulesH 08:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: the long text in the picture. Perhaps the picture and the information in the text should be rearranged into a separate section. But, the current presentation of the picture and the information points out the shortcomings of the PET scan research in a way that perhaps a straightforward approach would be inadequate to accomplish. Your other comments are very astute and any assistance in improving the article would be appreciated. Most of this text was lifted from the ADHD page, and perhaps some of the attribution was lost in the process. Perhaps some of the references on that page should be moved to this one? Oneismany 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've tried restructuring the article, and I think it flows better now. There are still a number of sections that are confusing, IMO, but I'm not sure what to do about them because I'm not sure I fully understand the arguments involved. E.g. the genetic causes section: why exactly does a genetic basis that is not fully understood present any problem to the mainstream view of ADHD?

I've also gone through and added notes where I feel references are needed to back up statements made. Some of these references shouldn't be hard to find, as they are references to mainstream beliefs about ADHD that are contradicted by a controversial belief, but we probably need those as well as references about the controversial beliefs themselves. The latter will probably be hard to find, as most such references are self-published, and self-published articles are unfortunately not generally acceptable as sources for wikipedia articles, according to the relevant policies. I'm not sure what to do about this. JulesH 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

“See also” section

Reference to the Biopsychiatry controversy article and others has been added. Incidentally, I have written an OR article about the obscene alliance of abusive parents with psychiatrists [1], and I just wrote a letter to Jimbo in which I mention the nasty ADHD article [2]. —Cesar Tort 03:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of Dr Sobo's article as a source for this article

We have a lot of content on this page that references ADHD and Other Sins of Our Children by Simon Sobo M.D.. I don't wish to cast aspersions on Dr Sobo (who I understand has contributed to this article himself as User:Ss06470) or the validity of his research, I'm not sure if we can continue to use this article as a reference. The problem is that according to wikipedia's verifiability policy, self published information is not an acceptable source except for uncontentious biographical information.

Now, it could be argued that this article's topic is, essentially, what different people believe about ADHD that is not the mainstream view of the psychiatric profession, and that the article is therefore providing biographical information: it is asserting that this is what Dr Sobo believes, and I don't think that this is a contentious assertion. However, the presentation of the information is likely to be interpreted as presenting facts about ADHD and the evidence for its existence, not merely on what Dr Sobo believes. In this context, it is fairly clearly original research, and is as such prohibited.

I'm not sure how to procede from here. I don't want to simply delete it, because I feel the points raised are significant. Dr Sobo has a good reputation, and has had articles critical of standard psychiatric practices published in a number of sources. I'm sure his point of view here has at least some validity. But I don't see how it can be expressed within the policies that are in place for wikipedia. JulesH 22:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

--Ss06470 02:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)I give up. I notice that the clear explanation of the PET scan being used to lead this article has been stripped of its content. That explanation there was not an opinion. It was simply an explanation of what that PET scan shows What better place to put that explanation than here, the ADHD controversy article but alas... How nice it is to repeatedly refer to what "Dr. Sobo believes" rather than to deal with the content issues. AS for self published material I challenge anyone to get this material published given the extreme bias of the journals. That is the reason I have spent so much time carefully documenting what is going on in my profession. If it werem't so serious it would almost be funny. So keep your article any way you want it to be, Jules H. You are making a major contribution to continuing the one sided point of view being presented to the public

The new description of the image is certainly worse than the old, but there is no shortage of WP:V criticism of Zametkin et al. For example, the control group had a much higher proportion of women or prior medication exposure (Baumeister and Hawkins 2001; Leo and Cohen 2003). --Limegreen 03:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia style guide for image captions suggests keeping them to three lines or fewer. I edited the caption to comply with this guideline. It was not the place for the information that had been put there. If anyone wants to put it back somewhere in the body of the article, I'm not going to stop them. As to phrasing Dr. Sobo's opinions in the form of statements about his beliefs rather than as facts, that is all that can be done here -- these are contested opinions to which there is no clear right or wrong answer. We cannot simply ignore the fact that they are minority opinions, and we must therefore express them as such. I don't make the rules that require publication before we can use an article as a reference, although I do believe the rule is a necessary one. Wikipedia is not a place to present fringe opinions as if they were fact. It should reflect the generally accepted understanding, and note where others disagree the basis for this disagreement. I think the article in question can be used for this purpose, but the phrasing must be careful to avoid giving the impression that Wikipedia is making statements about the accuracy of the research. JulesH 07:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

--Ss06470 13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Limegreen I know there has been other criticisms of Zametkin's work and for that matter Castellano's work for failing to take into account the findings might be the result of prior medication exposure. Indeed, Castellanos has been hard at work trying to prove his critics wrong,[3] which I respect. My criticism is that this PET scan picture has been used over and over over as "proof" the whole problem is biological. The contrasting pictures of the brain are amazing when presented as a picture without an explanation. After seeing it, how could any one argue that the differences are not biological? Except once an explanation is given about what the picture represents it is clearly meaningless. I'll go further and put it straighforwardly. It is a big fat lie to show the picture and then intentionally not discuss what it represents. Rather than address the other criticisms I thought simply revealing what this picture is was the most dramatic criticism of the unstoppable freight train which biological advocates, stoked by billions of pharmaceutical dollars, are foisting upon practitioners. As for your criticism Jules H. I am glad you are willing to concede that an article about ADHD controversies can include opinions, although I suppose by your reasoning that "there is no clear right or wrong answer" everything comes down to who has the most citations, or what "experts" believe. I don't know what your knowlege of the subject matter is, but I would invite you to sample some of my writings to get a feeling for the subject matter at hand. The basis of thinking about a subject is to weigh the evidence and the reasoning of those with opinions and try to conclude what makes the most sense. Unfortunately science does not hold the answer yet about these subjects. For now, trying to sift the evidence and the reasoning of proponents is the best we can do given the limited state of our hard knowledge.

I have been citing the many very important people who are disturbed by the money and power of pharmaceutical companies(enough for the editor of NEJM to not only write her editorial exposing what is going on, but then go on to write a book about the subject.) I have also provided a link where I have defended drug companies, and the content of emails to me asking me to write for Peter Breggin and/or scientology front organizations and turned them down because they have gone way too far in condemning medication. I am also not claiming that only I am dispassionate. I may be wrong about plenty of issues. Obviously I have a fiery temperament, am an iconoclast and enjoy a good debate. But I don't simply choose any old subject to argue about. I get fired up when people are clearly being dishonest, whatever the source. That is the reason that I defended Lilly Pharm when it was getting a bum rap.[4]The kind of murderous drug company depicted in the movie "The Constant Gardener" was completely offensive because it went too too far. But I strongly feel drug companies' hired guns ("experts") are distorting the discussion on this topic and many others.

It isn't only direct coercion, although there are many mailings to doctors that through sheer repetition make doubtful assertions seem true. There are also pendulum swings in paradigms that make certain points of view officially sanctioned and others verboten. It is not unlike the various schisms that take place in political parties where one group is kicked out of the in group, and banned from respectability. That is what happened to the former rulers of academia and most of the journals, the psychoanalysts. To even hint at sympathy for these "discredited" ideas is to reveal yourself to be a secret believer. It should be that way, but in fact it is.

I will repeat what I have written before. On many occasions academicians have whispered to me that they admire my "courage", which is ironic, because outside of academia it takes no courage to simply state what you believe. I might add that in many conversation with real scientists doing the basic lab research that leads to discoveries, they joked about the whole "expert" thing that is so popular with "scientific" clinicins. If you look at the statement of the discoverer of Prozac when he was given a prize (I'll track down the details) his emphasis was not on his expertise but on how little we understand. Regarding the politics of belief one other fact might interest you. The professor who invited me to give the Psychiatry Grand Round Lecture at the University of Alabama (on a different subject)asked me to communicate with him on his private e mail, so worried was he that the content of some of my e mails might get him in trouble. It is noteworthy that our private discussions, initiated by him, quickly turned to the absurdity of the ADHD literature. You might also look into Professor Healy's withdrawn academic appointment once his views on Prozac became known. So for the thousandth time we are not dealing with a topic where intellectual integrity characterizes the debate. It is in fact pathetic that my views, when they are freely expressed will not be published by mainstream journals whose citations you so admire One other comment. I am as opposed to 3/4's of the criticisms and nut theories about ADHD posted on these pages. I am especially opposed to material generated by scientologists. I am beginning to wonder if my spirited posts here are becoming counterproductive since the more I argue my point of view the more they become the focus of editors while truly crazy ideas go undisturbed

Citations in 'Genetic Basis of Hyperactivity'

The '' tag begs a source at two points in this section, but I thought the statements were sufficiently general to accommodate many points of view, and so they do not reference specific sources. For instance, there is no identified defective gene that corresponds to ADHD. I propose that the section be modified to state specifically that there is no defective gene mentioned in the ADHD literature. (That we might be 'searching' for one based on no evidence, may be enough comment on the scientific status of the disorder.) The followup statement merely emphasizes that the hereditary basis of ADHD does not prove that it is a disorder. What citations can be made for the observations that there is no evidence of a defective gene and that there is no proof that this heredity is a disorder? The section may very well be rewritten to avoid the perceived lack of sources; anyone is welcome to improve it. Oneismany 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the subsection. I hope this meets with everyone's approval. Please discuss here, before making any major changes. Oneismany

Cleanup notice

This article has been substantially altered since the cleanup tag was posted. Any strong objections to removing it? Oneismany 20:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I still think there's a lot of work needed on this article, so would prefer it remained. But if you really disagree, feel free. I probably don't have time to do any further work on this article any time soon. JulesH 10:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

PET scan description

--Ss06470 21:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)I've changed the section accompanying the pet scan. This is getting ridiculous. The only controversy is whether the differences in ADHD brain activity are due to the fact that the parts of the brain that are used to accomplish the task are broken and can't be used or simply are not being used. Whoever wrote the latest simply does not understand what a PET scan is. They don't measure the energy of the brain. The whole thing is gobblygook.

The brain consumes sugar and generates heat; that is energy output. PET scans follow the sugar where it is consumed, and help model the locations where heat is generated. It may well be that some brains consume more or less sugar than others; or, generate more or less heat than others. The fact that some locations in the brain are more metabolically active in certain people than others does not prove anything by itself; this data must be interpreted by a person, and that is how its significance is determined. As with CPUs in computers, there may very well be differences in wiring or speed or energy metabolism between one brain and another that cannot be accounted for by this method. Maybe ADHD brains do not need as much sugar as other brains to accomplish the same task. The apparently lower level of activity may not reflect a biological difference or a difference in attention span; it may very well reflect something else altogether. Oneismany 14:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this picture should go. It gives people the misleading impression that brain scans are actually credible. -- Barrylb 19:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No. This image is an artifact of a specific approach to studying personality. Time will tell whether this approach is valid or not. Oneismany 21:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Brain scans do have a degree of credibility. Admittedly, this image is ancient in scientific terms, but perhaps there are not others that are freely replicable. There was a review of all the ADHD-brain scan studies published last year (Bush G, Valera EM, Seidman LJ. (2005) Functional neuroimaging of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A review and suggested future directions. BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY 57 (11): 1273-1284), which contains both a summary of the work so far, and covers quite a bit of the criticism of scanning studies.--Limegreen 03:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 68.83.221.88

Freyr reverted these edits, presumably because we shouldn't have notes like these on the article page. They might be worth discussing, though, so I'm C&P'ing them here, including a little context from the article. JulesH 18:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If brain imaging is done while one person moves their arm and another doesn't there will also be a demonstrable difference. [edit - could arm movement cause the differences seen in these scans? Goes to relevancy]

Despite this shortcoming, this brain image and many similar pictures of the brain are repeatedly displayed as proof of the supposed biological cause of the condition. [edit - if this is in reference to Zametkin's 1990 study, there were 25 ADHD patients scanned. Is the author asserting that all 25 patients were simply not even attempting to pay attention to the task, or that all 25 patients were moving ther arms? Could the author address the reasons why he finds an explanation that all 25 ADHD patients were willfully refusing to pay attention to be more parsimonious than the explanation that their common disorder prevented them from doing so?]--4.245.140.58 23:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)The most parsimonious explanation is that either could be the case. A biological problem is keeping them from doing the task or a psychological problem is causing them to not pay attention to the assigned task And yes 25 ADHD patients could not be doing the assigned task That is what ADHD is all about. In any case the difference in the PET scan can be explained by a lack of effort. The issue about moving their arms is not that moving their arms can cause this divergence, it is that if you do a PET of an individual moving his arms and one not moving his arms the PET scan could be different. The PET scan simply shows where there is activity in the brain at a given moment. Using a dramatic picture where someone is paying attention to an assigned task and somepne isn't and using thhe two pictures as an illustration of a biological difference in the brains is silly to be charitable or intentionally misleading. (Those contrasting PET scans have been shown over and over as an illustration of biological difference)

The same teacher might not notice a child who forgets their papers, stares (entranced) at the carpet for long periods of time, or shows many of the recognized symptoms. [edit - While input from a teacher is often one of many factors involved in a diagnosis, teachers do not make the final diagnosis. Arguing that a teacher may misunderstand the diagnostic criteria is therefore irrelevant as to the validity and application of said criteria.]

But critics point out that neurological differences exist among individuals just as with any human trait, such as eye color or height; and that stimulants have an effect on anyone, not just those diagnosed with ADHD. [edit - could you cite a source showing that stimulants reduce anxiety and hyperactivity in patients not diagnosed with ADHD?]

In other words, ADHD may be better seen as a form of neurodiversity. // [edit - Current DSM criteria require that symptoms create an impairment in function in two separate fields (ie school and home). A person for whom these symptoms constitute a positive or neutral attribute therefore cannot be diagnosed with ADHD. This argument is therefore irrelevant, as it would only apply to people who by definition do not have ADHD.]

By this theory, a person cannot be impaired in 2 different contexts by an attribute that might be positive or neutral in some other context. But the "impairment" is an opinion, as is the neutrality or positivity of the attribute. I do not see how 2 identical opinions can rule out every other opinion as a possibility, no matter how authoratitve the opinions. This is not math, or physics we are discussing here. The whole basis of this "impairment" can be called into question by simple suggestions about the methodology for investigating it, or the theory behind it. Oneismany 14:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

From the main ADHD article

This came from the main ADHD article which already has an overly large section dedicated to the topic: --*Kat* 18:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Another argument which has been offered against the diagnosis is that the behavior of putative ADHD sufferers is the "natural" way for children to behave in a situation which does not engage them. It has never been a simple task to teach children how to behave in a "grown up" fashion, and therefore great amounts of time and energy have traditonally been spent by parents and educators trying to inspire, cajole, threaten, lecture, bribe (and every other imaginable strategy) in the service of teaching a child how to gain self control, act with consideration for others, and do tasks that are not fun. In other words, it is argued, a child who is not successfully taught how to behave, obey the rules and stay on task will display all of the symptoms of ADHD. Those who place emphasis on the parental role in ADHD claim that while neurological impairments, or innate tendencies, can be a factor in the ability to stay focused on tasks being demanded, the "nature" (or biological) aspects of the nature vs.nurture controversy have been greatly exaggerated. They claim millions of children being diagnosed with this condition have nothing physically wrong with their brains.

A believer that ADHD is a biological condition, Xavier Castellanos M.D., then head of ADHD research at the National Institute of Mental Health, (NIMH), has also expressed reservations about the extent of available biological information about that condition in an interview on Frontline in 2000:

Frontline: "How does ADHD work on the brain? What do we know about it?"

Castellanos: "We don't yet know what's going on in ADHD..."

Frontline: "Give me one true fact about ADHD."

Castellanos "The posterior inferior vermis of the cerebellum is smaller in ADHD. I think that that is a true fact. It's taken about five years to convince myself that that's the case. That's about as much as I know--that I'm confident about..."

Should there be suggestions on this page about diagnosis?

"Anyone diagnosed with AD(H)D should have a complete evaluation by a behavioral optometrist." quote from the article

Making treatment or diagnosis suggestions does not seem to fit with the title of the article or the spirit of wikipedia. Perhaps this should be along the lines of stuff like alternative diagnosis. Lonjers 02:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Jay Joseph

Two books by Jay Joseph challenge the current genetic theories, including the ADHD theories:

http://www.jayjoseph.net/GeneIllusionChapters.html

and

http://www.jayjoseph.net/MissingGeneChapters.html

―Cesar Tort 07:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Lazy parents

Would like to see a section about how lazy parents who would rather drug their kids up than actually parent them added to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.207.61.98 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

+*+*+* I was highly skeptical of ADHD myself (even quite vocal about those 'lazy parents who want to drug their kids into complaciency' at times), until my son came along. I have two children, one with ADHD, one without. The difference with the same home, involved parenting style, same diet, ect, is very vast. He's responded very well to treatment, and went from getting in trouble all the time, climbing anything in sight and getting himself hurt, not getting his schoolwork done or being able to sit still and be quiet in class, and other symptoms to making straight A's in school, being more successful in controlling impulses (thus not doing things that drove potential friends away before), being more pleasant to be around and talk to, ect. He's much happier because he was so frustrated with himself before, he really was trying very hard; now he can acomplish what he sets out to do. -- Rachel

There are numerous "faith based" critics yet they all lack a good scientific foundation for their claims. Speaking of lazy parents, Peter Breggin the outspoken anti-psych, came up with DADD as the cause of ADHD back in 1991. "...most so-called ADHD children are not receiving sufficient attention from their fathers who are separated from the family, too preoccupied with work and other things, or otherwise impaired in their ability to parent. In many cases the appropriate diagnosis is Dad Attention Deficit Disorder (DADD) (Breggin, 1991)....The "cure" for these children is more rational and loving attention from their dads. Young people are nowadays so hungry for the attention of a father that it can come from any male adult. Seemingly impulsive, hostile groups of children will calm down when a caring, relaxed, and firm adult male is around...."

Yeah right, I fear Breggin has watched one to many Stephen Speilburg movies where children have an absent father and all is resolved when dad watches their baseball game. The world just ian't that simple. Will the Austic kid and Bipolar kid get better when dad coaches their team?

There are numerous studies that show that this is not primarily an environmental disorder. Studies show that there is a strong genetic component to ADHD, it's more heritable then height or intelligence. --Scuro 21:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It amazes me anyone really believes this disease. My brother was "diagnosed" with this "disease" and he can concentrate fine on a video game for 9 or 10 hours straight. He can't concentrate on schoolwork because he finds it boring. If you want to drug your kids into studying instead of teaching them discipline, be my guest, but no need to make up a disease to help parents feel a little better about doping up their kids simply so they can have a few less headaches as a parent.

It's not a disease, there is no agent that causes ADHD. You have been reading to much Fred Baughman. His poor logic is visible in your ideas. --scuro 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In the term "Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder", the term Hyperactivity involves the hyperactivity of attention. Those who are diagnosed with this disorder may exhibit extreme focus in some situations. Generally that is on things which interest them as interest can be the component which swings the switch into the on position. People with ADHD really tend to be either on task or off task, with nothing in between. The drugs which are used to treat ADHD will generally cause symptoms of ADHD in people who don't have it, as they are stimulants. See the National Institute for Mental Health's ADHD page for details on it. Slavlin 20:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, because it's entirely not possible for someone to just be disinterested in one thing and interested in another, especially as a child. I'm sorry, but many a year ago I was given the battery of these tests and exams because I didn't "fit into class" well enough. Why? Because I was bored, because I blew through material at a higher rate. Other kids just plain arn't interested in the same things. I'm glad I wasn't born 10 years later, because I would have spent many years on prescription speed, aka Ritalin. Though since i'm not a doctor yet, I still have a few years before I'll feel free to report on this as a valid source. --Human.v2.0 22:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see an article that shows the difference between perspective and fact. It might clear up a few of the above users' doubts. Read the articles; they talk about the difference between concentrating on something the diagnosed finds interesting and something they find boring. Careful, lest you end up a "lazy parent" yourself. -unsigned

POV

This article is just a hodgepodge of POV.

Many critics of the diagnosis of ADHD do not agree that it should be classified as a disorder even though there is a wide body of clincal evidence that indicates ADHD causes impairment in life functioning and that behaviour associated with ADHD has been clinically shown to be abnormal in those with ADHD. [1] Yet, these critics believe that it should only be considered a difference in methods of thought and mental organisation, more akin to a distinctive physique than to an actual disorder.

-Fairness of tone is lacking here. The clinical evidence is asserted as true and it's place in the article just serves to make the critics' point seem inferior and in total contradiction to science.

Also, much of the research about ADHD actually contradicts facts asserted by the mainstream psychiatric establishment. The brain scans that lead this article supposedly show the difference between an "ADHD" and "Normal" brain, yet Zametkin later admitted that differences in sampling led to any discovered differences in the 1990 study.[citation needed] There are massive ambigiutities still in the science and NIMH does not widely release their data for re-analysis by other researchers who may be critical of the concept of ADHD[citation needed], which is exactly the opposite of the ideal scientific method.

-Ok, first the phrase "mainstream psychiatric establishment" is showing clear bias against psychiatry. last sentence is full of statements such as "there are massive ambigiuties[sp] still in science" and "exactly the opposite of the ideal scientific method". These arguments need to be sourced and ideally that whole section needs to be rewritten, pretty much nothing is sourced and only the critics views are really represented.

The section about Sub-Clinical ADHD is written without attributing views to anybody, and is partial toward the critics leaving most of their claims unchallenged while only putting in a token statement "However, the results achieved in clinical tests with medication and anecdotal evidence of parents, teachers, and both child and adult sufferers has been taken as proof that there is both a condition and successful treatment options for most people who meet the criteria for a diagnosis." which is compromised by phrases like "anecdotal evidence" and "has been taken as proof".

Confusion may also arise from the fact that ADD/ADHD symptoms vary with each individual, and some mimic those of other causes. A known fact is that, as the body (and brain) matures and grows, the symptoms and adaptability of the individual also change. Many individuals diagnosed with ADD/ADHD successfully develop coping skills, while others may never do so.

-If you assert that some point of view is confused you damn better source that statement

There are numerous, often contradictory, claims that the brain is physically different in children with ADHD.

-Using the phrase "often contradictory" undermines the validity of this statement and it makes pretty much no sense.

There are numerous, often contradictory, claims that the brain is physically different in children with ADHD. However, even if this eventually is confirmed, by no means does it establish that the condition is biological. Behavior can cause changes to the structure of the brain. For example, learning Braille causes enlargement of the part of the motor cortex that controls finger movements.[2] After they have passed their licensing exam, London taxi drivers have been found to have a significantly enlarged hippocampus compared to non-taxi drivers[3][4]. Patients abused during their childhood with post traumatic stress disorder will have a flattened out hippocampus.[5] Professional musicians have brains that are different from non-musicians.[6] Monks who meditate show measurable differences in their prefrontal lobes.)[7][8][9] So diminished concerted effort when confronted with tasks thought to be drudgery (homework, paying attention to teachers, and the like) even if not caused by differences in the brain, could have brain changing effects.

-Attribute this argument to somebody, this should really be sourced if a significant minority holds it, or removed if it's just a couple people who believe this. As far as I see it, this is a logically flawed argument as theory claims that it is possible to diagnose ADHD at early ages, and in fact many are diagnosed before 7. This paragraph represents bias in favor of critics and skews the whole etiology section.

Critics have noted that the hypothesis "ADHD exists as an objective disorder" is unscientific, and point out that people generally assume that something is scientific just because it sounds scientific [10]. A minority but vocal number of critics have stated that ADHD is not falsifiable and that ADHD is simply a list of symptoms. Yet, theories for the origin of ADHD behaviour were made as far back as 1902 by George Still. He believed these behaviours could be explained a "notion of defective volitional inhibition and moral regulation of behavior". [3] Numerous theories from other researchers have been made since then with most current theories focusing on inhibition as the core deficit of ADHD.

These vocal critics also believe that even if a sharp objective difference is found between ADHD and non-ADHD groups, that this does not prove that the difference constitutes a pathology. They point out that behavior that is considered normal-variant like homosexuality or left-handedness, likely has a neurochemical or neuroanatomical basis as well. These criticisms fail to take into account that ADHD is not a disease but a disorder and that normal-variant behaviours such as homosexuality do not meet the main criteria of a disorder which is disfunction or distress of the individual.

-Using the phrase "vocal critics" is unecessary and undermines their message -Second paragraph makes assertions without sourcing them, homosexuality causes distress to some people and there are ADHDers who believe in its special powers and refuse to be medicated.

Nor does a genetic basis for the characteristic of hyperactivity prove a biological basis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Particularly, the theory that DNA may contribute a probabilistic susceptibility to mental disorders, often assumed in medical literature, is unproved, and possibly unprovable. Psychological diagnoses may well fall into the category of unfounded cultural prejudices, along with racial classifications based on skin color, and religious hatred.

-You seriously need to source claims like this. If something is "often assumed in medical literature" then readers should be provided with sources of who makes the claim and why exactly it is supposed to be unproved.

Ok, I'm tired now. The other half of the article on alternative theories isn't too bad. But the first half looks like the aftermath of a battle between scientologists and ADHDers ending in the ADHDers losing interest and the scientologists going off to rant elsewhere. What we are left with is an article that contradicts itself in a number of places and strong bias in at least half the sections. I am posting this analysis to see if anyone agrees that I have correctly identified the biases. If we have some kind of consensus then this article should be edited and every unsourced statement taken out until a source is found.

Source of Info/Commentary

Some interesting thoughts of ADHD and the like can be found in this report from the Canadian Health Institutes ----> http://www.chsrf.ca/funding_opportunities/archive/devfunds/hidg/pdf/bibeau.pdf

May be worth a look, as there are some things that could be useful to this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.241.238.179 (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Also, the National Institute for Mental Health's ADHD page is a good resource to reference. Slavlin 20:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Falsifiability section, second paragraph

"These controversial critics also believe that even if a sharp objective difference is found between ADHD and non-ADHD groups, that this does not prove that the difference constitutes a pathology. They point out that behavior that is considered normal-variant like homosexuality or left-handedness, likely has a neurochemical or neuroanatomical basis as well. Yet these criticisms fail to take into account that ADHD is not a disease but a disorder and that normal-variant behaviours such as homosexuality do not meet the main criteria of a disorder which is dysfunction or distress of the individual. They also confuse the difference between a disease and a disorder. No mainstream reasearcher has ever said that there is an agent or pathogen that causes ADHD."

Much of this is partially POV. I don't see it presenting any information that isn't purely factual (that is, all of its information seems factual and valid). However, it draws conclusions -- "these criticisms fail to...", "no mainstream researcher has ever..." -- which is something I believe should be left to the reader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.163.61.3 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

An encyclopedia is not a factoid or collection of factoids. An encyclopedia also presents ideas. Having said that I can see changing the wording of the first quoted section. The section section doesn't draw conclusions it presents a fact. If you know of a mainstream researcher who believes that ADHD is caused by a pathogen and you can cite that, the whole sentence should be removed. --scuro 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited much of that paragraph myself, before even reading the talk page, as it was obviously madly POV, if anyone feels it now needs further adjustments to make it flow better feel free, but please don't replace what I scrapped without discussing it first. Restepc 04:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

--- The main problem with this section is that large parts of it are non sequitur. In particular, these sentences do not bear on the question of falsifiability:

"Yet, theories for the origin of ADHD behaviour were made as far back as 1902 by George Still. He believed these behaviours could be explained a 'notion of defective volitional inhibition and moral regulation of behavior'.[10] Numerous theories from other researchers have been made since then with most current theories focusing on inhibition as the core deficit of ADHD. These critics have not addressed the history of the disorder nor have they addressed the numerous examples of theories of ADHD in any of their writings."

The history of ADD claims do not weigh pro or con in the controversy over falsifiability. The inclusion of these sentences appears to be an attempt at fairness. We should present evidence from a source that argues for the falsifiability of the ADD hypothesis --- NOT its historicity.

A secondary problem also exists. The article only state the conclusion of the falsifiability argument, not the argument itself. We should present it. Jeff.younger 14:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

4th Paragraph of Skepticism of Diagnosis

"Also, much of the research about ADHD actually contradicts facts asserted by the mainstream psychiatric establishment[citation needed]. The brain scans that lead this article supposedly show the difference between an "ADHD" and "Normal" brain, yet Zametkin later admitted that differences in sampling led to any discovered differences in the 1990 study.[citation needed] There are massive ambigiutities still in the science and NIMH does not widely release their data for re-analysis by other researchers who may be critical of the concept of ADHD[citation needed], which is exactly the opposite of the ideal scientific method."

This paragraph seems blatantly biased to me. All of the material is uncited and the last sentence in particular, although it technically contains only facts, makes it sound like someone has an axe to grind. I'm still not certain, but I'd like a second opinion on the matter as to whether it stays or goes. -- Clevomon 13:04 EST, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: On second thought, I decided to simply remove that paragraph. If anyone wants to make a case for keeping it, just say so. -- Clevomon 21:42 EST, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientology

The scientology section seams like bs too me though I don't really know. Also all of it's sources appear to be a couple of websites that I don't nessacarylly trust as reputable. However I don't really know, So what do other people think about this.163.118.216.93 22:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How so BS? The citations come from the Los Angeles times and anti-psych websites. Do yo mean to refute their own words?--scuro 01:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

flogging the Zametkin dead cat

Seems like every few months there is an outbreak of Zametkin image bashing so I thought I would let others know that the issue has been delete with here->. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder/archive3#zametkin_issue --scuro 20:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed section

I deleted the following section (labeled disease mongering in ADHD) because I see it as a POV statment without adequate sources:

Also medical doctors who accept that ADHD is a valid diagnosis (most do) are concerned because of the organised penetration of the pharmaceutical industry, especially by certain large pharmaceutical companies, into patient groups, parent groups (they are influential), and into schools and other education domains. These companies seem to deliberately influence which information and data are available to patients, parents, teachers and doctors. This phenomenon is called disease mongering. Although there is no hard evidence yet that deliberate disease mongering is planned in advance and then executed by certain large pharmaceutical companies (not all), unfortunately this seems likely, and the aim of disease mongering seems to be that many more "patients" are diagnosed with a certain disorder than would be the case in a neutral, caring, critical and up-to-date modern clinic. For example: If a pharmaceutical company could make an ADHD parent group its firm ally by telling them what they want to hear (1. the group will get generous funding; 2. parents of ADHD children are already doing all they can for their children, there is really nothing they can do more, the children just need better medication; 3. in reality, many other problematic children also have ADHD, these poor other children first need to be diagnosed properly with ADHD and then also need better medication), it could use the parent group's influence for its purposes. Hence, many more "patients" would be diagnosed with ADHD; these children would be prescribed the company's medicinal drug for ADHD. The market for this medicinal drug would become much larger than it would be without disease mongering. For further information on disease mongering, see the discussion on this topic at the "Public Library of Science": http://collections.plos.org/plosmedicine/diseasemongering-2006.php

Disease mongering in ADHD seems to be a real concern, i.e. ADHD probably is diagnosed much more often in everyday medical practice than would be justified by best available medical knowledge.

.

What do other editors think? RalphLender^talk 21:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You asked what others think. I think the edit by removing the entire paragraph is very heavy-handed. This is a key issue, since over-prognosis can be a serious issue (or even THE issue) even if ADHD exists. It seems odd for the article not to be allowed to flesh out this concern, even if not endorsing it. The para explicitly says there is currently no "hard evidence" for disease mongering by pharma companies. Yet it is "likely" - because of all the money there is to be made from selling e.g. ritalin. Would anyone seriously dispute that there are incentives to disease-monger and that pharma companies are responsive to incentives? Any corporation has legal duties to maximise shareholder value. A friend of mine working for a pharma company told me off the record that they "create illnesses; it's great for business." But of course this is "only an anecdote." One could redress the perceived imbalance simply by adding the clause "It might be argued that it is likely ...." I am minded to change the para back with this amendment.

Temper

In Finlandia or among finns or estonians all roma (african, arab, turk, jewish) children would look ADHD 159.148.71.250 10:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is categorizing african, arabic, turkish and jewish people as romani ridiculously racist to all parties, and is phrased like a Yakov Smirnoff joke: "In Finlandia, Roma annoy YOU". Interminable cretin... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.56.88.4 (talk) 21:24, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

This article is very biased towards the psychiatric viewpoint.

The vibe I get from this whole thing is that the controversy is unfounded, while the medical viewpoint is completely substantiated. It needs to be edited to portray the views of those who oppose the system, and why exactly they do so. Contrary to popular belief, 'medical research' with twin studies and genomes is far from unopposed and has alternate explanations. It's absolutely fair to post 'evidence' supporting the views of the psychiatric establishment as long as the views of those who criticize the establishment are also written in the same amount of detail and with their full arguments. When you write mountains about a pro-psychiatric viewpoint, and very little about the opposition's answers to these claims, you inevitably cannot write a neutral article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowCreatorII (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your vibe may be subjective. If you believe that the controversy needs to be beefed up to create balance, go ahead. On the other hand, this doesn't mean that you can delete or alter material to create the balance you desire. Your edits have been undone. Please use the talk pages before deleting further material.--scuro 15:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite clear that the arguments 'controversy about ADHD' are clearly designed to favor the psychiatric viewpoint by citing unopposed 'medical research studies' and not citing the responses of critics that have equally valid viewpoints. When you cut one side off and make it seem like so called 'research' is unanswered, you create a biased viewpoint in which the reader assumes that the opposition has no valid argument. Criticisms of the methodology of these 'studies' does exist, and the association between Scientology and anti-psychiatry is not well founded. Just because many Scientologists also dispute the claims is not evidence for a real association, and this needs to be noted because such an association is commonly used to discredit critics. Here is just one example:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kOW8LNU2hFE&mode=related&search=

I think it's fair to reference to The Gene Illusion because this is probably one of the most publicized works that debunks psychiatric theory that 'genetic resemblances' between psychiatric patients with similar disorders actually have valid implications in said disorders. What also is important is that it debunks the assumptions that social factors are not responsible for these differences.

I am not editing the page to my 'liking'. I am editing the page to present a viewpoint less biased in favor of one perspectives. In an article about controversy, it is only fair to give the opposition's response to the establishment's supposed 'debunking'. Criticism of the supposed 'evidence' that ADHD has genetic components needs to be shown as it give the reader more of an opportunity to examine both sides of the argument. Again, just because something is technically defined as 'medical' does not mean that it has more credibility than other sources if the whole nature of the issue is very subjective. You need to use words like 'claims', 'hypotheses' and 'assumptions' rather than 'evidence' because it is VERY CLEAR that these psychiatric viewpoints are entirely subjective and not based on strong evidence. Viewpoints also need to be owned. You cannot have "evidence states...etc" unless there is a physical disorder that has a proven, direct pathology.

When you speak of being "cut off" the most recent behaviour of deleting and altering of reliably cited material comes from you.

Post away as much as you want. If you want to put in material that is fringe material it can be done. Qualify it though. i.e....Antipsychiatrist critic Dr. Fred Baughman has created much controversy by making unsupported claims that Ritalin causes brain damage. We can reliably cite that he: is a antipsychiatrist critic, he creates controversy, his claim is unsupported by majority or minority viewpoints, and that he made this claim. Once that is established his beliefs can be stated ad nauseum.

The word "debunking" is word that scientologists and antipsychs love to use because it sounds so darn good. Yet, it is not a word used at all in science. One study does not "debunk" the other study or a series of studies. One book does not "debunk" a wide body of evidence. At best the book or study adds new information to the field and that is about it. It doesn't flop science on it's head. I also strongly disagree with this statement of yours; "because it is VERY CLEAR that these psychiatric viewpoints are entirely subjective and not based on strong evidence". Not that my opinion matters that much on Wikipedia. The conventions of Wikipedia require good reliable secondary sources such as the NYT support such an assertion. I doubt you will find such a reliable secondary source.

Studies are "evidence" and the word is totally appropriate in the passage, especially since there is a body of evidence which supports this idea....all of which can be supported by reliable secondary sources.

...and finally, "pathology" is also a red herring used often by antipsychs/ scientology. Disorders are not conditions that progressively deteriorate because of a pathogen. That is called a disease. Adhd is a chronic and persistent condition, a disorder in functioning...hence the term..."disorder".

Now instead of all this bickering can we get back to the business of the talk page? How do you suggest that a particular section be improved? and do you have good secondary sources for any addition, deletion, or alteration of material? I'm all ears.--scuro 03:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not just going to submit to your viewpoint.

"

   When you speak of being "cut off" the most recent behaviour of deleting and altering of reliably cited material comes from you. "

Actually, no, I am not. I have deleted exaggerated claims of 'proof' that do not have the sufficient evidence to be cited at all. What has been cited are OPINIONS, which are refutable and should be treated as such.

"Qualify it though. i.e....Antipsychiatrist critic Dr. Fred Baughman has created much controversy by making unsupported claims that Ritalin causes brain damage. We can reliably cite that he: is a antipsychiatrist critic, he creates controversy, his claim is unsupported by majority or minority viewpoints, and that he made this claim. Once that is established his beliefs can be stated ad nauseum."

It doesn't matter at all if his views are supported by the majority. When you say 'unsupported', you imply that his views are inferior to the majority of views. How valid ones' views is not determined by the palatability to the majority view; in this case, the heliocentric theory would have been stated as:

"Anti-church critic Nicolaus Copernicus has created much controversy by making unsupported claims that the Earth revolves around the sun"

What you should say is:

His views are not supported by the majority of practicing psychiatrists.

There you have it. An unbiased, factual way to cite it, instead of something implying that he has no idea what he's talking about, since 'unsupported' can also mean 'without evidence'.

" The word "debunking" is word that scientologists and antipsychs love to use because it sounds so darn good. Yet, it is not a word used at all in science. " Because from this viewpoint, psychiatry isn't science at all. It's a word used to attempt to expose something fraudulent for what it is. And, this viewpoint is well supported. There still has been no way to objectively determine whether someone has a mental disorder

"One book does not "debunk" a wide body of evidence. At best the book or study adds new information to the field and that is about it. It doesn't flop science on it's head." No, you're right, it doesn't, especially with the inertia that is exhibited in all monolithic societies. But what it does is that it gives a different slant on all this so called 'evidence' that could flop it on its head if such a path is pursued further. In essence, it gives an alternate explanation to all these studies which should be well noted. And it's not just the book itself, its a view, a logic, etc. If there is an alternate theory to why the studies turn out the way they do, why not document it, as long as it follows reasonable logic and examines both sides of the story? The alternate theories of social factors in twin studies do in fact make logical sense given the subtle differences in relationships in different situation, and the fact that we basically don't understand the brain much at all. Now, I agree that this shouldn't be touted as 'hard evidence', but neither should the psychiatric view, because it's not based on HARD FACT. And, there are other arguments against so called 'studies'; I will give one other. The problem is that in modern psychiatric practice, opposing views are not given nearly the same credit as those who follow the status quo, hence disproportionate representation. And um...there have been times in history when 'well supported science' such as phlogiston theory has been overthrown outright. It might have taken some time, but this wasn't because such was incorrect, it was because it was unpalatable with the majority. You could argue that modern scientific method prevents this, but it cannot be used to accurately measure or determine such subjective aspects of life.

"I also strongly disagree with this statement of yours; "because it is VERY CLEAR that these psychiatric viewpoints are entirely subjective and not based on strong evidence"." But it is. They are observed behaviors by a highly subjective viewpoint that some attempt to turn into objective data. You simply cannot HAVE real, valid medical evidence as to causes either way on something so subjective (at least at our level of understanding), but only make subjective arguments as to the causes and treatments. This is where the whole 'medical view' fails; we are not advanced enough to understand much about the brain or accurately test complex behaviors (partly due to pharmaceutical influence) to get an objective result. When one section later states that psychiatrists don't know what leads to ADHD, but earlier 'evidence' is given for genetic factors, this is contradictory.

" Studies are "evidence" and the word is totally appropriate in the passage, especially since there is a body of evidence which supports this idea....all of which can be supported by reliable secondary sources. "

Wrong, because behavioral studies often with pharmaceutical tainting and subjective interpretation by individuals who have been taught to view behavioral 'flaws' a certain way are incredibly biased and subjective in nature. And, it doesn't matter if I cannot find a direct, mainstream source to supposedly 'lend credibility' to what I am saying; just because something is not commonly accepted again does not compromise the validity of it. Also, if something is commonly accepted, it does not mean it is automatically valid. Also, mainstream media organizations and publications are owned by companies who would not likely allow opposing viewpoints on an issue that would cost them millions of dollars if they were put forward.

" ...and finally, "pathology" is also a red herring used often by antipsychs/ scientology. Disorders are not conditions that progressively deteriorate because of a pathogen. That is called a disease. Adhd is a chronic and persistent condition, a disorder in functioning...hence the term..."disorder". "

Not a red herring. Actually, many psychiatrists refer to mental 'disorders' as diseases, and even if they call them disorders, they often act like they are physical conditions. These are almost always caused by some kind of physical mechanism, pathological or not. Hence, comparisons between schizophrenia and diabetes which are completely unfounded.

"Now instead of all this bickering can we get back to the business of the talk page? How do you suggest that a particular section be improved? and do you have good secondary sources for any addition, deletion, or alteration of material? I'm all ears"

Sure.

Disorder mongering:

"It commonly refers to the explosion of ADHD diagnoses, the subjectivity of the matter, and environmental and psychological factors which have been said to play a role in or possibly cause ADHD. Some aspects of behavior do point to this, one being that children with ADHD can commonly concentrate on fun activities such as playing video games for hours on end. They argue that because the perspective of many psychiatrists is limited to the status quo that they are incapable of noticing more looming factors." http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/17/ADHD_interview.html

Etiology of syndrome:

However, some have questioned whether these vague similarities between genes may simply point to other passive factors that while are technically valid have no direct implication in the disorder. Some would include intelligence and extroversion, both which commonly make functioning within a strict set of rules or in a classroom environment noticeably more difficult for many.

The section about the contradictory claims that the brain is physically different is good, but the section above would connect the two much better; i.e. giving a more direct explanation for these 'genetic similarities'.

Genetic basis of hyperactivity:

"However, some critics allege that patterns in the family, or even in twin studies do not necessarily suggest valid genetic implications in ADHD, even if some basic personality traits are heritable. This would relate to family dynamics and differing relationships between identical twins and fraternal twins."

www.faculty.umb.edu/peter_taylor/99b.doc

(includes important outline of scientific criticism of methodology of so called 'genetic studies)

"However, some critics point out that correlation does not directly imply causation, and that although some similarities may exist, these may not cause ADHD. Some even assert that those with ADHD simply are reacting to a poor environment, but have a more extroverted and rebellious personality style which makes acceptance difficult. See The Gene Illusion"

Any more questions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowCreatorII (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

simply follow Wikipedia guidelines

WP:UNDUE

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. 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. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

---

---

Wikipedia is not the place to argue what is the "truth" with regards to a topic. If that's what you desire start a blog or go to ADD forums. What matters to Wikipedia is what society thinks(majority and also minority viewpoints) and good secondary and reliable citations....and that is about it. It's pointless to discuss your viewpoints because they fall outside of these parameters and I'f wasted enough of my life in these circular debates.

---

---

WP:FRINGE

This page offers guidance on establishing which non-mainstream "theories" should have articles in Wikipedia, and to an extent how those articles should approach their subjects. We use the word theory in a very broad sense, including conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the "theories" addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.

We propose these guidelines in the belief that an appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia self-identifies primarily with mainstream opinion, and because other mainstream sources often view our project as a contender for mainstream status, it is important that Wikipedia itself not become the notability-validating source for these non-mainstream theories. If another, adequately well-known source discusses the theory first, Wikipedia is no longer the primary witness to notability. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a subject in a neutral manner if the subject completely lacks mainstream discussion. If all available sources are not neutral but instead put forward a point of view, an article on the subject may risk violating the No original research policy.

Mainstream here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications. This should be understood in a commonsense sociological way and not as an attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", which may well be impossible. We leave the finer distinctions to the philosophers (see demarcation problem). Fortunately, the authors of non-mainstream theories often explicitly proclaim their non-mainstream status in one form or another (for example, by arguing that they are ignored because of some great conspiracy, because other practitioners aren't ready to accept their truths, or other similar arguments).

---

"Disorder mongering" falls into fringe viewpoint. Whatever you post on the article be considerate of the majority viewpoint and do not try subvert that viewpoint with a fringe viewpoint. Happy editing.

---

--scuro 20:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we've come to an agreement.

That the Wikipedia guidelines are garbage, and serve to simply provide the view of the ignorant majority rather than factual evidence. Some authors proclaim that their theories have not been mainstreamed in the way that was explained simply because it's absolutely true. Just remember that whatever is on here has nothing to do with what is closer to the truth, because you sure seem to act like it. Whatever, enjoy your faux-urbandictionary style propaganda. At the very least, it should be stated on the top of the page that this reflects the OPINION of the majority rather than being based on 'objective evidence'.

Personally, I think it's important to inform the majority of what has a more logical basis, regardless of how 'fringe' it is. But I guess following the guidelines is more important than that.

Picture

That picture is useless unless someone labels/indicates which scan is which ie ADHD is on the left or right. It maybe be possible to guess which is which but we're running a encyclopedia here!(BTW: this came to my attention because I don't know which is which)Wolfmankurd 13:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the photo. Unless someone can edit the caption (and reference it) to illustrate which image is which, there's no smart way to "guess." --Human.v2.0 22:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Heredity and ADHD

I welcome the avid debate about "ADHD" and neurodiversity. I was lucky to grow up while ADHD was largely "unrecognized". I didn't have to ingest Ritalin, and although I had all the traits that are consistent with "ADHD", I was not labeled as such. In a way, I thrived. As is typical of people like myself, who often think outside the box, and who have the ability to exercise holistic penetration of an issue, I would like to register my viewpoint on this topic. Plainly and simply, ADHD is highly hereditable, and is correlated with certain abilities to enhance civilization and science in particular. To all of you psycho-babble and psycho-chatter miscreants who would exterminate if not interfere with our kind, I offer you only one piece of magnificent evidence which is usually obvious and acceptable to those of us fortunate enough to have the "ADHD" gift: 'There are too many of us for natural selection to keep around if we didn't have wonderful things to offer to man's survival' You know where you intolerant 76.160.122.182 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)dime-a-dozen conformists can go!!!! Back to your caves... 76.160.122.182 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A circular argument true to your ADHD nature. ;) I have a form of unrecognized ADHD but ADHD none the less. I am on the flip side of your coin. I believe the psycho-babble is necessary to eliminate the biased inducing tone that some engage in. I'm glad that we can both exist on the same page.--scuro 02:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

On another note....

I've decided that I don't give a shit about scuro taking advantage of the system. In the middle ages, witch burning was considered acceptable by the majority, but that does not make it any less wrong. Long ago, people believed in alchemy, which was untrue as well. Whether or not information is supported by the majority of experts should not be relevant to its place on wikipedia. What is needed is objective, factual information. Whether or not most scientists or people support or do not support it, or whether it is a 'fringe' view is completely irrelevant. Galileo was considered a 'fringe' scientist in his time, but we owe it to ourselves to do better than a metaphorical lynch mob angry because the majority belief has been challenged. I'll be back soon to perform some major edits on this page, though I am pleased that some minor ones have already been accepted.

Wikipedia should serve as an objective informational tool, not one to avoid sparking controversy wherever possible in order to keep things quiet. Sometimes the truth hurts pretty badly. We are not trying to keep the masses placated here, we are trying to present fair and balanced (no reference to faux news intended here) view of the subject from both scientific and social standpoints. I do not spend all my time on wikipedia unlike a few users on here, but look at yourselves; does being on more frequently make you more right and more eligible to edit? No, it doesn't. One CAN debunk a huge body of 'evidence' if it can be adequately shown that the evidence was gathered in a flawed and biased way. The same thing happened with the heliocentric view, and the equivalent of pro-biopsychiatry advocates of the day threw a tantrum. I would expect better. ShadowCreatorII 13:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Using foul language doesn't make you more compelling. It turns other editors off. I agree with you that talk postings generally shouldn't be removed. Having said that, abusive language directed at editors would be a cause for removing text. I just think it should be done following proper wikipedian procedure. So be warmed SC, your behaviour is not acceptable, please change your behaviour.

Now to the business at hand. All talk should be about improving the article. Focus on this and not on editors and judgmental rants. I would start reading on how wikipedia works and then work within that system. Try here WP:VERIFY. --scuro 16:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't support WP:OR so we are reporting based on majority expert opinions. Notable criticism (via notoriety) and significant minority views can have some mention too (mentioned as minority views), but it is not our job to determine the "correct" answers and truth. Voice-of-All 19:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't make a difference.

I simply cursed because I'm tired of your stupid tactics, not particularly to be more compelling. I've seen you all over other forums employing the same 'majority rules' tactic in order to force others away, instead of presenting an objective, factual truth. My cursing was not excessive, and I'm afraid it's not up to you to make judgments on my behavior as yours has been hardly rosy around here. So be warned scuro, your "behaviour" is not acceptable, please change your behavior.

Only the first two sentences did I focus on another editor because I needed to reverse my older decision. And my later part was not a 'rant'; I was simply pointing out as to why going with a 'majority opinion' is nothing short of tyranny. I understand how wikipedia 'works', and I also understand that you are using technicalities to force your OPINION on other people without hard fact. I really don't care how 'fringe' a viewpoint is as long as it logically makes sense and can be substantiated at least as much as the other viewpoint (by quality, not by quantity). Both sides of the story need to be presented no matter what, or else you (and other editors that demand a majority viewpoint) are committing the same wrongs that the Catholic Church did to Gallileo. You could say that our scientific method has advanced (true), but psychiatry has largely skirted a scientific method.

I'm really not going to fall for your smug tactic that seems to suggest that I have no idea what I am doing, and that I need to learn what is going on. I have every idea what I am doing, and I wish to provide an unbiased, factual nature to this article rather than what simply is the majority viewpoint. If most experts believe something, you say: "blah blah blah, most experts support this view...however, there is no scientific evidence to substantiate that this is to be the truth". 'Weasel words' can certainly go in favor of the establishment, as well. Saying that biased views have to be presented because the majority of experts believe such a thing isn't a very good point to try to make.

So, yes, I will be performing a major overhaul of this article within several days, with adequate backing.

ShadowCreatorII 18:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to report my behaviour if you find it offensive. Glad that you also have spent sometime researching. Now if you can move on from researching my editing habits and look for reliable resources for your "truths", Wikipedia will be the better place. Good luck.--scuro 07:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said I was going to report your behavior, nor am I interested in doing so. I only stated what I did because your passive aggressiveness is really irritating, especially this nonsense that you practice in deliberately trying to demean people so that you appear to have the higher ground. You kept saying that whoever is 'right' is not relevant here, except that it is, because you are using the guidelines to enforce something you believe to be true. I'm not interested in 'researching' your editing habits, just making an observation that if you had an opposing viewpoint to something highly controversial and it was considered 'fringe', you probably wouldn't be obsessed with the guidelines so much. It was interesting that when I brought up some good points, you simply copy pasted the guidelines. I just typed up a huge response to the other article, but it's three in the morning, and thus I will be working on it soon.

ShadowCreatorII 07:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again your post is full of personal judgments. WP:CIVILITY I have taken the first step and posted a warning on your talk page. [5]

Staying up till 3 am writing rebuttals of a personal nature might be a sign for you that it is time to step away from the computer for a bit. I imagine every editor at one point, myself included, has gotten too emotionally involved in a subject. Wikipedia has stated as much, and recommends a computer holiday from time to time. ( wikistress ). Hopefully after some rumination we can put this behind us and focus on the task at hand which is to work together to improve this article. --scuro 12:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC) It's not up to you to post warnings on my page. I'm not too emotionally involved nor am I actually on wikipedia that often (and I have a different sleeping schedule than you). Again, I find it funny that you're accusing me of this while you subtly throw barbs in my direction. Once again, your post is full of personal judgments, please stop using the guidelines to cover your tracks.

-- ShadowCreatorII (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested edits.

Now, if we could stop the underhanded comments:

Disorder mongering:

"It commonly refers to the explosion of ADHD diagnoses, the subjectivity of the matter, and environmental and psychological factors which have been said to play a role in or possibly cause ADHD. Some aspects of behavior do point to this, one being that children with ADHD can commonly concentrate on fun activities such as playing video games for hours on end. They argue that because the perspective of many psychiatrists is limited to the status quo that they are incapable of noticing more looming factors." http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/17/ADHD_interview.html

Etiology of syndrome:

However, some have questioned whether these vague similarities between genes may simply point to other passive factors that while are technically valid have no direct implication in the disorder. Some would include intelligence and extroversion, both which commonly make functioning within a strict set of rules or in a classroom environment noticeably more difficult for many.

The section about the contradictory claims that the brain is physically different is good, but the section above would connect the two much better; i.e. giving a more direct explanation for these 'genetic similarities'.

Genetic basis of hyperactivity:

"However, some critics allege that patterns in the family, or even in twin studies do not necessarily suggest valid genetic implications in ADHD, even if some basic personality traits are heritable. This would relate to family dynamics and differing relationships between identical twins and fraternal twins."

www.faculty.umb.edu/peter_taylor/99b.doc

(includes important outline of scientific criticism of methodology of so called 'genetic studies)

"However, some critics point out that correlation does not directly imply causation, and that although some similarities may exist, these may not cause ADHD. Some even assert that those with ADHD simply are reacting to a poor environment, but have a more extroverted and rebellious personality style which makes acceptance difficult. See The Gene Illusion"

It is important not to jump to conclusions just because most experts tend to do so. While some of psychiatry's points have a shred of technical validity, they certainly are not valid in the sense they are touted in.

Once again: I don't CARE if some of these are 'fringe' viewpoints in your opinion. What matters here is to post a logically significant viewpoint. You ignored my point about the guidelines before, so I'm going to ignore your diatribes about following the guidelines. If there was a wikipedia in the 16th century, would Gallileo be simply an 'anti-church critic" and only worthy of a 'fringe viewpoint'? I have no doubt that some people WANT 'fringe' viewpoints to remain 'fringe' regardless of how valid they are, but I also would like to see that we've matured a bit as a community from the 16th century until now.

Forget Gallileo, Einstein himself would be fringe on Wikipedia before he published e=mc2...and even after he published because he was unknown at the time.

"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas" WP:NOR

Wikipedia is not the place to alert the world to the "truth"!!!! If you want the truth to get out start a blog. In a nutshell your suggested edits would either be Fringe, OR, or lack credible citations.--scuro (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, these theories have often been published on a lower scale, just not in mainstream psychiatry. Being in the mainstream has nothing to do with truth. And also, denying Einstein his place on wikipedia because someone would consider his views 'fringe' would be retarded. Moreover, those are actual physical, scientific theories, as opposed to psychiatric dogma. Though dogmatic, even previous scientific views were not entire house of cards. So there's a big difference there.

Like I said, you seem to want to argue against what I say for awhile, but then after you can't make an argument, you resort to saying "fringe....FRINGE!" Poor tactic, tbh. If it can be logically reasoned that biological psychiatry rests on a house of cards, it is use that viewpoint.

ShadowCreatorII (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Read what I write, you ask a hypothetical question and I answered it. If Wikipedia existed in Einstein's time, and he had originally posted E=MC2 on Wikipedia, it would be removed because it couldn't be cited to a reliable source. It would have also been considered OR. He was unknown at that point, even in the scientific community. Same could happen now. There may be a genius who attempts to post cutting edge information, and it will be removed. That is because it wouldn't yet be recognized as minority opinion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to publish original research.

I'm going to bow out of this discussion, it's failing to advance the article and I am not at all encouraged with SC now interpreting "the hidden actions" behind what is posted.--scuro (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and bow out.

Kindly read what I wrote. I partially disagreed with the idea that he should have been excluded, and your analogy was poor, because it applies to something physical and tenable rather than something gray open to social bias. It's like saying that the anti-psychiatry positions are wrong because there are some flaws in physical medicine.

Honestly, I don't care if you're going to bow out. But please refrain from reverting my edits and screwing with this page as long as you're not willing to discuss anything.

ShadowCreatorII (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Should this page be deleted?

There is no real controversy with ADHD. There are some things not known, and some things that can't be measured well yet but that in itself is not controversial. Much is known about treatments and this is a disorder where drug treatments have been clinically shown to be more effective and cause less side effects then for any other illness. It is the most widely studied childhood disorder and has been accepted by every national health unit in the USA and probably the world.

If you merged the good citable material from this page onto the adhd page, you would be left with fringe opinions and minority opinions that are becoming less and less accepted as we learn more. A good editor would take a hatchet to the article, cut away most, and move the rest to the ADHD, Anti-psych, or DSM article. Then they would remove the hollowed out carcass.--scuro (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there are controversies, that's a fact. How notable they are is another matter, but they are notable enough that I could pull a few off the top of my head. This article was created as a subpage for the ADHD page, and, as such, it would be better for it to be named ADHD controversies because it then gets indexed with the ADHD article. It is properly referenced from the latter, and controversies pages properly keep controversy from cluttering up the main page. Improperly, they become POV forks, which is not allowed. Both articles -- all articles -- must be NPOV. However, on a Controversies article, my opinion is that sourcing requirements shift a *little*. What is asserted on Controversies pages, is the existence of *arguments*, which should properly be attributed or reliably sourced if expressing some broad consensus in the field, plus what can be reliably (verifiably) stated with reference to facts, in detail, so that readers may come to their own conclusions. This cannot be imbalanced, i.e., only facts supporting one view or another. It can be very useful. There are currently, in my view, some problems with the main article, but those properly will be dealt with there. The controversy, to the extent that it is notable, *should* be covered there, but briefly, and what goes in the brief mention can be sometimes problematic. It must be NPOV, which does mean balanced, and not leading the reader to conclude anything about the controversy that cannot be directly verified from reliable source. --Abd (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

--Ss06470 (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Just thought I would drop by to see the reaction to last night's FrontlineThe Medicated Child on the chaos in psychiatric medication in children. (the program can be viewed on line) Apparently there has been no reaction here. Quite interesting that one of the "experts" Dr. Biederman, from Harvard who I have made a special point of citing as a drug company man, they pointed out is no longer willing to talk to the media. Quite interesting also that Scuro is getting more and more aggressive ("there is no real controversy") precisely as the media and public are waking up to an era which will be a stain on my profession's history. My article,ADHD and Other Sins of Our Childrenwhich Scuro has repeatedly referred to as part of the "antipsychiatry camp" (It isn't) will be coming out this summer in England as part of a book "Rethinking ADHD, An International Perspective" Palgrave-McMillan Ed. Sam Timini. Scuro what can I say? You may rule here and you may be able to control content through your persistence, but truth has a funny way of emerging despite the thought police that try to control it.

Customary, Ss06470, to sign at the end, which helps readers, in addition to indents, to know what text belongs to whom.... Thanks for the link, I'll look at it. No individual editor rules here, and editors who seriously try to do this can be blocked; but that process can be quirky; it's normally slow unless an editor manages to rile an administrator. My personal opinion is that controversy over the ADHD diagnosis is notable, and my reason is simple: I've been aware of it for quite some time. That does *not* mean that I agree with everything in the criticisms, or even much of it, but only that I consider we cannot properly exclude the topic from the encyclopedia. There seems to be some wish to keep all mention of actual controversy in this article, which may violate WP:FORK; however, I do think that it merits its own article, which can keep the detailed discussion necessary to examine the issues out of the main article. The reference to "thought police," though, does not further your cause. Frankly, it makes you sound like a fringe theorist, thus reinforcing the determination of the thought police valiant crusaders against quackery, to eradicate mention of your views. It takes all kinds to make a village and an encyclopedia. Your contributions could be very useful if you can join the community and Assume Good Faith. Yes, I know it can be difficult at times. If you can't do it, at least pretend! As a published author, you may be considered to have a Conflict of Interest, but if you make suggested edits in Talk, others without such a conflict can examine them, perhaps ask you about them, and, if they think them an improvement for the article, place them in it, taking responsibility for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ego stroking. I had no idea I was so mighty and powerful until you pointed it out to me. There must be a Wiki conspiracy that allows this to happen. I'll grant you this much, there has been a heck of a lot of internet content created which uses terms such as controversy, truth, and fakery...etc. The laymen coming to the internet may very well believe that there is a controversy...that the disorder is not real. But I say, WHERE IS THE BEEF? What national health institution, legal judgement, scientific body, or higher institute of learning recognizes that ADHD is a controversial diagnosis or controversial condition? These are the pillars of society and I have yet to see any pillar of society seriously question ADHD. I have no doubt that there are oodles of social critics that think that ADHD is a controversial disorder but every time they are challenged in court, on TV, or before congress...they get smoked.--scuro (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

--Ss06470 (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)No Scuro You are not powerful. Nor clever. Instead of holding forth why don't you take a look at the Frontline program and quietly consider what is being presented there? Then you can decide if your opponents are getting smoked. Most of the "experts" on that show emphasized how little we really know. You might also take a look at Benedict Carey's articles in the New York Times on this subject. Then if you have any integrity at all you will change your tone and perhaps go away and allow those with considered ideas to discuss the issues. But then I'm sure you won't. You wouldn't be Scuro if you gave any thought to your opinions

Thanks for building me up and now tearing me down...I think it would be best if we stick to the topic at hand...not make this personal per wiki guidelines. I have seen the portions of the Frontline program, I have read a good deal of the transcript, and I am certainly aware of the opinions of the two main critics...Baughman and Breggin. If you go to the Frontline website, you will learn that Baughman is a medical expert for Scientology...certainly not an impartial witness. Breggin was a scientologist a long time ago. What is remarkable is how their expressed opinions about ADHD are really no different from what Scientology believes. Please...with regards to ADHD and ADHD medication, tell me any point where the viewpoints of these two social critics differ from scientology. Are they really just expounding upon their own personal belief system not at all connected to the scientific method?

I haven't read Benedict Carey's articles in the NYT and would like to have a peak. Do you have a link?--scuro (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

--Ss06470 (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)That is wild reasoning. If the conclusion agrees with scientologists they are little different. As I noted a long time ago I have turned down both scientologist linked sites to write for them and Peter Breggin. I believe Dr. Breggin goes too far in his condemnation of meds and the scientologists are absurd. Could your tendency to lump have something to do with your belief that critics are "anti-psychiatry" rather than critics who care about the field Here is a Carey link:

[6]

Here is another one citing a seven fold increase in the diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Actually after this article came out a study in the Archives of General Psychiatry in September noted a 40 fold increase.

[7]

Here is a link to something I wrote on the subject several years ago

[8]

Some more links to Carey's articles http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/health/22KIDS.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/11/health/psychology/11kids.html

Thanks for the links. Lets keep focus on the topic of ADHD on this page. BiPolar is a different story. --scuro (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

--Ss06470 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Your welcome, but many of these articles are referring to ADHD as well as childhood bipolar disorder. They are part of the out of control need that doctors now seem to have to make a "diagnosis" As I try to explain in this article this tendency is behind a lot of the poor practice now going on. There is a false sense of acting in a scientific manner when in fact the science isn't there. See The strengths and weaknesses of DSM IV: How it clarifies, how it blinds psychiatrists to issues in need of investigation

I don't believe childhood ADHD and childhood Bipolar have much in common clinically speaking, especially when it comes to current diagnosis practices and treatment. The diagnosis and treatment of childhood bipolar is controversial because you get some real heavy hitters in the field strongly voicing opposition to some current practices. On the other hand prescribed stimulant medication for adhd is safe, highly effective, and been studied for decades. Why is it still used when many critics have a vested interest in spending millions in bashing the whole concept of ADHD and ADHD medication? Because it really makes that much of a difference for kids and parents. So on this topic, I respectively disagree with you Ss.--scuro (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's actually clean up this article.

There is a clear answer to the question in the previous section: "No, this article should not be deleted. It should be cleaned up, properly sourced, with balance as the sources indicate."

Scuro has begun to remove some weasel words in the text, which is progress, but the main problem with this article is the lack of source for many alleged facts. ("Critics claim" is an alleged fact, it needs source, properly, as with any fact, though we often tolerate such vague claims for a while in stubs, immature articles. Given the depth of this controversy, there should be no problem finding source for "critics claim," which source merely must meet WP:V; if the argument is attributed, and the attribution is not controversial ("He did not say that!"), the source might not need to meet WP:RS, though RS is always preferred. Criticism, though, should be notable, which can be established in various ways. --Abd (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to take a hatchet to this article. It acts as flypaper for every floating opinion out there. Below are suggestions where I would start. --scuro (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Not every opinion is notable. When, however, it seems reasonably possible that unsourced text does reflect *some* notable opinion, the collaborative way is to citation-tag it. If it is *wrong*, take it out or fix it. Remember, though, weasel-worded text is rarely "wrong." Rather, it needs attribution, citation, clarification, etc. The whole point of using weasel words is to make a safe statement. "Some claim that...." is probably true for almost any claim. Here is the bottom-level standard for the claim. Have you, reading in this field outside of Wikipedia, heard of it? If it was referenced, was this reference to some fringe website, or other biased source, with a reliable source unlikely? If this is the case, removal is likely the proper action. But if the opinion has been reported by reliable sources, such as public news organizations, it becomes better to attribute the claim. "According to Fred Baughman, ADHD is ...." In this subarticle, there is no harm in having a series of notes showing that "Some" critics on a particular point exist, if no reliable source contains the summary. It should be reasonably easy for any reader to verify the text of the article.

--Abd (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

the definition of controversy and how it relates to Wikipedia

From the Oxford dictionary

"A prolonged argument or dispute. esp. when conducted publicly and over a matter of opinion."

Within wikipedia the term would also have to mean that both sides of argument would have to be notable enough to qualify for majority and minority opinion. For instance Holocaust deniners wouldn't be considered minority or majority opinion in a "final solution" article. You would have to be able to identify the minority opinion. Who or what group is actually in debate and considered noteworthy enough.

In summary for the addition of the word controversy into an article you would want:

• -to clearly define what exactly is controversial
• -to show that this is an ongoing debate that continues into the present
• -that both sides of the debate would fall in either majority or minority opinion on a topic
• -that you can clearly identify who or what group makes up the minority opinion.

Without qualifiers vertually any topic can be shown to be controversial.

• Controversy and underpants 47000 hits.
• Controversy and gardening 276000 hits.
• Controversy and doves 76000 hits.
• Controversy and "being kind" 28000 hits.--scuro (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is sophistry. Controversy is a reasonably clear word, and like many words, can have many meanings depending on context. Absolutely, "is controversial" is meaningless unless there is source; that source can be to an RS that specifically says "controversial" or a clear synoynm, or it can point to specific points of view. The whole topic here gets muddied because there are various controversies: What is ADHD, does it even exist? (Underneath this is a controversy over what it means for a disorder to "exist"). How is it defined and diagnosed? What is its etiology? Is it heritable? Does it require treatment, and, if so, how? How much of the situation with ADHD is therapeutic or medical "art," and how much is science-based? Then there is an additional consideration: *who* takes various positions on these controversies, and how notable, in comparison, is each position or each group of advocates?

My opinion is that we cannot disentangle this aside from addressing *specific* edits or proposed edits. Without a foundation of established consensus text about the *facts*, we cannot determine overall article presentation and, especially, appropriately balanced text for the introduction to this article and those to related articles. Rather, some of us are attempting to deal with this from the top down, to argue for some overall perspective. I'll point out that perspective is a synonym for POV. In other words, attempting to resolve disagreement among us about what perspective is proper for approach is attempting to establish a POV, which is the exact opposite of what we need.

The classic and suggested approach to the problem we face is to work on specific edits, and, for each, to seek and find consensus. This is *easier*, in fact, than trying to resolve the global issues. It can result, however, in choppy text, which will be viewed by some of us as unnecessarily complicated and confusing. But "confusion" is not necessarily a bad thing, if it is rooted in the uncertainty of science. The old joke is that "If you aren't confused, you haven't been paying attention." Obviously, we should aim for clear and unconfusing text, but *not* at the expense of suppressing notable POV and fact. Introductory text should indeed be concise, and, when there is controversy among the editors, reflecting controversy in the field, the introductory text should either minimally present it, showing balance, or should itself be taken down to almost a stub, a bare definition of the topic, with the article, then, exploring each subtopic. This article, Controversies about ADHD, is itself a subtopic, and a good place to start exploring the reliably-sourced presentation of the controversy.

User:Scuro has brought up the category of social critics, and has implied that critics of the field are social critics, not scientists and various specialists. That's clearly incorrect, there is reliably-sourced confirmation of the controversy from scientists and specialists, and the specific critics are, some of them, qualified in the field. The most notable example is Fred Baughman, who is a neurologist. Now, his criticism comes from one focused on what might be called "physicial neurology," and that is where his practice and research, apparently, was concentrated. But if we are going to have a claim, presented as the accepted position, that ADHD is a "neurological disorder," then, surely, the opinion of a neurologist is relevant. I don't think we can have both an acceptance of "neurological disorder" and "the opinion of a neurologist is to be rejected." The question that remains, of course, is the degree of notability, but Baughman has been, shall we say, noticed by reliable sources. He's notable, period. The question of balance remains.

My experience in other fields leads me to notice that claims that a particular POV is the "consensus" of scientists, when, in fact, no such consensus exists; rather certain people in prominent positions have cooperated toward the promulgation of such a claim, and it becomes accepted "wisdom," and then any expressed position to the contrary is attacked as "quackery," or "fringe," no matter how solidly based in research or expert analysis. I'm not claiming that this is the case, here, only noting that it can happen that there is an alleged consensus that was never actually formed among the knowledgeable. In the field I have in mind, that of the whole debate over low-carbohydrate diets, the causes of obesity and other diseases of civilization, there has been recent work totally overturning what was a heavily oppressive "conventional wisdom," and, though I still find the conventional wisdom expressed almost every day in the popular press -- there is a huge inertia -- the scientific community has largely turned. The publication of Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes has pretty much nailed it. Unfortunately, there is an entire generation of nutritionists who have learned the bad science in school, have promoted it for their entire career, and who have committed themselves in print, those who write, to claiming that contrary opinion was preposterous, obvious nonsense. It's hard to move that, it takes time.

All this is really dicta, huge chunks of Wikipedia memory are being dedicated to arguments that won't go anywhere except as we actually work on the article. Scuro asked if this article should be deleted. I think the answer is obvious: if this article is unneeded, its content should be merged with the main article, Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. That is, in my view, premature at best. This article on controversy provides a space to explore the controversy without having to balance with every edit the notability of the controversy with the general opinion in the field, a matter which is quite difficult to actually determine. *Then* when we have a good article on the controversy, we can see how much of it should be stated explicitly in the main article, and how much should be kept in a subarticle. There will be more detail here on controversy than could be justified in the main article. That makes the main article clear and relatively simple; this is the creation of a knowledge hierarchy which is fundamental to a good encyclopedia.

--Abd (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

better citation needed for "neurological pathology" in intro.

The introduction had:

The ADHD diagnosis identifies characteristics such as hyperactivity, forgetfulness, poor impulse control, and distractibility, as symptoms of a neurological pathology.

I added a citation-needed tag to this even though there is a citation. That's because a citation to a large body of text requires page numbers or some specific reference to where to look. I'm surprised that the DSM would use the language "neurological pathology"; so if it does, I'd really like to have some quotation of the context to know how it is used, which could be here in talk. Anyone got DSM-IV-TR who can give us this? Or some reliable source which makes this claim based on DSM-IV? (in which case *that* would be the source, not DSM-IV). --Abd (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed article title and fixed double redirect

I have moved the article title to Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder:controversies per my expression of intention previously in Talk, requesting comment. No objection was stated. The reason for this move was to cause this article to appear after the main article in indexes; this should generally be done with article forks (subarticles). --Abd (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see your previous request for comment. I'm not so sure this is a good idea. I haven't seen other articles named in this way. For example Capitalism has forks Criticisms of capitalism and History of capitalism that aren't done in this way. Barrylb (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

step away from the computer

I am noting my disagreement with many viewpoints expressed by Abd. There has been no consensus built with regard to his viewpoints and with what the user at times seems to be expressing with certainty. Currently I don't have the time to respond to everything posted and will wait until the sheer volume of edits, critics, and opinions subside before I wade back in. The user's practice of doing a running commentary in talk and judging other editors motives also taxes users output. I have not responded to many of his posts even though they warrant further debate, simply because I can't keep up. Another editor has also expressed that they need a break for several days. Some editors should probably step away from the computer and consider if their excessive online presence isn't choking off communication.--scuro (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

how much is really controversial?

I just did a quick edit and I see that a number of sections contain info that scientists would agree with. That is an obvious delete. More pruning to come. But once you delete all the material that most agree to, then you must ask if the material left over is controversial. I see stuff that is in the article yet have seen no mainstream media pick up on these ideas. I believe that stuff should be deleted too.--scuro (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is laughable, the fact that some people think this does seem to be notable. *shrug* -- Ned Scott 07:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would think that scientists agreeing with something wouldn't be a reason to take things out of this article, unless there is no controversy. There is some weird stuff in here, though. Why is street drug information about methylphenidate in this article? Surely, if it's anywhere, it should be in the methylphenidate article, not here; but controversy about using methylphenidate to treat ADHD would be here. How is the name of the drug on the street relevant to this? --Abd (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is a citation needed for the statement that there is no objective proof for the existence of ADHD and that it is not falsifiable? The statement is true, and will remain true until an objective diagnosis for 'ADHD' is found and adopted. A citation would certainly be needed for that, but right now you might as well ask for a citation of a statement that nobody knows how life began on earth. They just don't. As soon as they do, there will be peer-reviewed research to show how they do. Until then, anyone can say it. Likewise, anyone can say that there's no objective proof for the existence of 'ADHD'. i know of no scientiifc journal which publishes articles on non-existent proofs. If there were, I could refer you to it. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not an issue of truth. What is needed is a reliable published source stating this. Otherwise this is a statement of original thought - see WP:OR--Vannin (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually this article is about controversies, you are off topic cb.--scuro (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations are needed for all statements in articles, if they are not purely a matter of definition and accepted language. Essentially, if there is an reasonable objection at all to something, it probably needs a citation. The claim that "there is no objective proof for the existence of ADHD" is actually preposterous. I've addressed this in Talk for the Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder article, more than once, and Clockback, Peter Hitchens continues to raise the question as though I'd said nothing. ADHD is a diagnostic category, a defined syndrome. To verify that it exists, as such, anyone may look at a copy of DSM-IV. It is not a "theory," that there is a listing there and criteria there are "proof" that it exists as a category. Theories are amenable to proof, in a sense, though we can tell that Mr. Hitchens is not a scientist, because scientists don't speak of "proof" of theories. There is no proof for any theory, there is only evidence. We might say that proof is confined to mathematics, but, even then, proofs are based on axioms, and there is no proof for the axioms.

What would be an example of a proven theory? Newton's laws of motion? Nope. Actually, they aren't correct, except as an approximation under certain conditions. So they certainly could not have been proven, even though they were accepted for centuries as exactly true. Evidence, yes. But proof is a big word.

So, ADHD exists. Saying it doesn't exist is like saying a word doesn't exist. It's preposterous. But then Hitchens claims "it is not falsifiable." Of course not. Definitions aren't hypotheses. Hitchens has made this argument over and over without specifying what hypothesis he is talking about.

Suppose someone wants to put the statement into an article, "Nobody knows how life began on earth." It would require a reliable source, and, even then, it would be subject to challenge unless it were reasonable that the source had some means of knowing what is claimed. And it isn't possible to prove a negative like that, generally. How do we know that nobody knows? Does God know? Perhaps there is, indeed, a God, and perhaps God has revealed how life started. Or not. Without evidence, either statement is simply an opinion. Now, we can quote opinion if we attribute it. If some famous person, perhaps Peter Hitchens, were to say, "Nobody knows how life began on earth," then we can put it into an article, if it is appropriate, prefaced with "According to Peter Hitchens, the well-known conservative commentator, ...."

Now, Peter Hitchens has written on this topic, at least on his blog. His opinions can be quoted here, perhaps, though WP:COI would generally preclude him being the one to put them in, and he really shouldn't ask anyone else to do it.

I can extract from what Hitchens has written that the hypothesis might be something like, "The diagnostic category ADHD does not represent impaired function." Problem is, the criteria are actually about one or another kind of perceived impairment. Perhaps the claim would be "The diagnostic category ADHD is useless for predicting sequelae or for identifying treatment," and, here, we might be getting somewhere. However, there is a lot of research that show the contrary of this. Is there any research that shows that it is useless? Beyond this, to try to figure out what he means is a little like trying to predict what a lunatic will say next. Not claiming he's crazy! Just that I'm not a mind-reader, I've been asking him to address these issues for quite some time now, and he always simply brings up something else. Ahem. Where's the beef? --Abd (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There he goes again, the master of the nonsequitur, and the beefless man constantly demanding beef from others, but unable to recognise it when it stands snorting before him and licks him on the nose. This cahp reveals in the discussion page on the main article that he has no idea of the nature of scientific proof. (by the way, how about the theory of flight as an example of one with a good record of accuracy and predictive reliablity?) Just look at his argument.

"Newton's law of motion aren't exact. Newton's laws of motion are scientifically respectable.There's no objective proof for the existence of ADHD.Therefore ADHD is a fact. "

Give me strength. Diseases ( yes, I know disorders aren't diseases) can be and are classified and discovered by the exhibition of known symptoms, objectively measurable and recordable. They are treated, with medicines and surgical procedures, whose natures are circumscribed by clear rules, sizes of doses, and which are known, by experiment, to relieve those symptoms in a way which is again objectively measurable. A lay person, seeing doctors involved in the 'diagnosis' and 'treatment' of 'ADHD' is readily confused into believing that the process is comparable to, say, the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis or tuberculosis or smallpox. It is not remotely comparable , any more than the purchase of a property in 'Monopoly' is comparable to the real property deal. I am entitled to state that there is no objective evidence for the existence of this nonsense, until he canproduce some, and I don't need a citation for a statement of absence. next, you'll be asking for chapter and verse for sentences that don't come from the Bible, so that I can prove they're not there. But look, old chap, becaue they're not there, there's no chapter or verse. Sigh. PH, logged in as Clockback (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The comparison that came to my mind was Munchausen syndrome by proxy. The diagnosis was invented by that highly qualified and reputable total nut job, Roy Meadow. Didn't he get a mother convicted by watching a news item about her on TV and apparently 'knew' she was guilty? The arrogance of that man is unbelievable and thankfully he's been discredited, but all around the world the diagnosis has momentum. Now, I'm not saying it's impossible for a mother to abuse her child to gain attention, all I'm saying is that doctors, and especially Roy Meadow, are too keen to attribute a psychiatric condition/fashionable theory when often there is another explanation. Oh and Newton's laws are exact. Incidentally, DSM-IV Criteria for ADHD describes most of the 7-8yr old boys I know. Miamomimi (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

--Ss06470 (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Once again I would like to direct you people to my article which addresses many of the issues you are struggling with regarding what is meant by a "disease" (intentionally called a "disorder" in DSM IV for some of the reasons being debated here)The strengths and weaknesses of DSM IV: How it clarifies, how it blinds psychiatrists to issues in need of investigation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss06470 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Compelling personal stories...logically well written arguments...redirects to personal websites...none of this means squat on Wikipedia. In the end you must show us the beef, citations are the gold standard of Wikipedia.--scuro (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly challenged this user 'Scuro', who tediously repeats his hamburger advertising slogan, to provide one ounce of 'beef' of his own. He remains wholly and pitifully beefless. He cannot show any objective evidence that 'ADHD' exists. This is because there isn't any. When this is pointed out to him, he first demonstrates ( see the discussion here and on the main site) that he has no idea of the nature of scientific proof, and then changes the subject. His last resort is to alter the meanings of the words involved ( so that 'controversy' is so tightly defined that it cannot be mentioned, because by his definition there is no controversy about 'ADHD'(in which case what is he doing editing an entry on that very subject?)) , whereas 'neurology' is demoted from an exact objective medical discipline ( members of which doubt the existence of 'ADHD') to a vagueness, so that he is somehow himself equal in argument to a college-qualified practising neurologist, and allowed to assert that 'ADHD' has a neurological component, when it has none. I really think this person has now demonstrated that he is simply unqualified for the role of self-appointed guardian of the entry, which he has arrogated to himself here. Will he please take his ridiculous 'where's the beef?' question elsewhere, until he has answered it on his own account? The sheer nerve of repeatedly demanding proofs of the negative, which anyone concerned with scientific proof knows to be impossible, when he cannot prove the positive he asserts, is becoming tiresome. Will somebody disinterested please intervene, and soon? I have patiently and repeatedly explained to this person what is at issue here. It is clear that he will revert any attempt to edit the entry which he personally dislikes, which is an abuse of this site. I am sick and tired of this. All I have ever sought is a clear early mention, on the main site, that 'ADHD' is a contentious diagnosis, and an adjustment of the language of the entry to reflect the speculative nature of the disorder. No more, no less. As for the user 'abd', who has now joined in the quacking 'where's the beef' chorus of obstruction, please don't seek to paraphrase my point. My point is simple. There isn't any objective evidence for the existence of 'ADHD'. Its existence is therefore a matter of opinion, and therefore of controversy. Which part of this symple syllogism do 'Abd' or 'Scuro' challenge? Please explain now, because my patience is almost at an end. The comment that trying to work out what I mean is like trying to work out what a lunatic will say next is simply false. I have said the same thing, following the same logical pattern, since I entered this argument. It is also an ad hominem insult. I have been lectured quite a lot by this person on the manners, etc , of Wikipedia. I think we can now dismiss all that as what it was, a self-serving diversion without any substance behind it. You cannot appeal to rules of civility and then break them in this fashion. The moment has to be approaching when those of us concerned that the truth is told will begin editing the 'ADHD' page into a truthful shape, regardless of implied threats of an edit war advanced solely to deter us, by people who appear to have no intention of listening to honest argument or reaching reasonable compromise. How can those who cannot provide objective proof for their case assume superiority in an argument in this fashion? How can those with no facts demand them from others, who are merely pointing out that they have no facts, and have provided them with repeated opportunities to produce those facts (to remind them, as they seem unable to grasp the question, what they are being asked for is an objective proof of the existence of, or diagnosis for the presence or absence of the alleged complaint which they call 'ADHD')opportunities which they have not taken? One more demand of 'where's the beef?' from the beefless Scuro or the equally beefless Abd will, I think, close the attempt to solve this matter by reasoned discussion. I have really tried, but have seldom encountered such obduracy. PH Signed in as Clockback (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry - what are you talking about?--Vannin (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fringe conspiracy theories?

The new section title "Fringe conspiracy theories" seems more than a bit POV. Neitherday (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Neitherday, that whole section is a rambling mess. I'd like to clean up the article and when I looked at again today, my first instinct was to delete it. Could you clean that section up?--scuro (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right, the section was a bit of a mess. I have attempted a rewrite, what do you think? It still needs to be sourced and attributed, and it might work better as a subsection to "Objections to the status as a disorder", but that will have to wait until tomorrow unless someone else wants to do it (the beauty of collaborative effort) — I'm heading to bed. Good night. Neitherday (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, I'll take a look at, at first glance it looks like a major improvement. --scuro (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well what do you know my ADHD article link is no longer on the controversy page

Was that you Scuro? For those interested it is ADHD and Other Sins of Our Children I suppose I am not allowed to put it on the site so if someone else could please do it. It should be coming out in July in England in a book entitled "Rethinking ADHD" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss06470 (talk • contribs)

Your article was not targeted. It was removed when the text it supported was removed in this edit.

At this point, your article is a self-published source and should be left out even if the text were to be put back in the article. When the book comes out in July, perhaps the article could then be used as a source in Wikipedia — however it would be better if you left left that up to someone else, as self-promotion is not encouraged on Wikipedia. Neitherday (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It was me, and no I didn't target it. I've been doing a house cleaning of the article. You could potentially start an article on yourself or your book. I guess it would depend on how notable you are. --scuro (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this before, doc. Until it's published we leave it out completely, and even then I wouldn't guarantee its inclusion. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just my site. The items you removed were carefully documented and are a crucial rebuttal to the brain is different in ADHD arguments. That you are able to get away with this is beyond belief but yes Ned we have been here before and as always you prevail through sheer persistence. If someone reading this has the time could you please report this kind of thing to whoever runs Wikepedia. That Scuro and his allies can not only police the ADHD page but also the controversy page is astounding. This page is a joke.Ss06470 (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors complained about the article. I've been cleaning it up. It was a major mess, it still needs work. If there are sections that you don't think should have been changed, please post the specific section with a reason. Your own work can't be included. Sorry about that, but that is the rules. --scuro (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, well. My apologies, Dr. Sobo. This is Wikipedia, where any person may present themselves as an expert on policy. Fortunately, that includes me, and here is my opinion: It's correct, what Scuro and Mr. Scott say, that your self-published work can't be used as a "reliable source" for fact. But that is not the whole story, and, for sure, it appears they aren't going to tell you the whole story.

(And this kind of behavior, which is common, is one reason why experts often don't feel welcome on Wikipedia. Funny, experts seem to think that they understand a subject better than the tinhorns that appoint themselves to keep wikipedia free of whatever they think is nonsense or that is inconvenient for their own points of view. Now, it's true: Wikipedia is egalitarian, and highly inefficient, which does not exactly encourage expert participation. It's not the egalitarian part that is the problem, it's the inefficiency. An expert can come in and put hours into editing an article, based on what he or she knows very well, and, poof! it's gone, because a source was missing or whatever, something that *real* editors would actually find and provide.)

Now, they have told you (not terribly accurately) what can't be done. Does that mean that nothing can be done? No. Dr. Sobo, you are an expert, the kind of expert that some of the self-appointed defenders of Truth, Justice, and the "Mainstream" Way have been claiming they are looking for. You aren't "anti-psychiatry." You are not "anti-drug." You are a psychiatrist in private practice who has also written a great deal, you have been published, you are not merely some lone nut case writing a blog, though they are attempting to lump you in with such. As an expert, your opinions on the topic may be included in the article *if attributed*. As long as we can verify that you expressed those opinions, it's legitimate, and *especially* it is legitimate if the article is about controversy. Controversy is about opinion, period. (Including the opinion that this or that alleged fact isn't.) So what's in a controversy article? *Opinions*. Reliable sourcing for opinions is different from reliable sourcing for fact. If an notable author expresses an opinion in a blog or self-published piece, as long as we can be sure that this was actually from the claimed author, it can be -- if relevant -- included in an article. Occasionally, even self-published articles from a recognized expert can be used for fact sourcing as well, but let's not go there right now. Rather, if you have a fact you'd like included in the article, simply give us the source for it! If it is just your overall impression, or even your professional judgement, then it's properly opinion and would be reported with attribution.

Further, linking to the Controversies article to your article, in external links, is normally allowed as well. As you know, you should not put it there. I'll be happy to oblige. You also know not to place your own quotations in the article nor to revert the edits of others who take them out. But you can say what you like in Talk, and ... illegitimi non carborundum, that bad Latin I first learned at CalTech.

As to the problems you have noted with getting certain kinds of material, on an objective level comparable to what is published, say, promoting the broad and indiscriminate usage of drugs, published, you are quite correct. Access to the journals is frequently biased and distorted according to, not true scientific consensus, but the opinions of the gatekeepers, who are a smaller and, we might suspect, more corruptible group. However, it's not necessary to generate some conspiracy theory, false consensus does appear from time to time in various sciences or arts without any secret conspiracy, ask Gary Taubes. In any case, something could be done about it, a topic for another day. --Abd (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Sobo, I put the link in as an External Link. As to what is in the article, to me, your views, as you have expressed them, do not match the pattern of other critics over aspects of ADHD. You accept and understand the role of DSM-IV in diagnosis, you routinely use ADHD as a diagnosis in your own practice. You prescribe drugs in the treatment of ADHD. Your position, as I understand it from the little I've read, is that the automatic prescription of drugs for ADHD symptoms neglects the complexities of individual needs and responses; sometimes a problematic response attributed to ADHD may be a result of aspects of the patient's life, such as poor educational supervision, problematic parenting practices, etc. Drugs may mask the symptoms, but simply writing a prescrption and forgetting about it is not practicing good medicine. Your anecdotes show an understanding that drug effects should be monitored, and that experimentation with dosages, including trials for various periods of stopping drug usage, will often reveal much about the underlying causes of various problematic symptoms, or at least how the drugs are affecting the patient. You are not what I might call a rejectionist critic of ADHD. You accept the biological basis of *some* ADHD symptoms. All this seems to me to be, in fact, mainstream. It's what I expect of my own psychiatrist. Now, there is a section on Concerns about medication. Would you care to write a paragraph for that section, to be placed either as attributed opinion from you (it should then be clearly based on an article you have elsewhere, we can't cite a Wikipedia editor qua editor) or on reliable sources (see WP:RS about that) for whatever you might need to cite as fact? Place the paragraph you write, if you choose to do it, as a Talk section here. --Abd (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your unkind words Abd. He honestly has a new theory on consensus building, something to do with a meta project. The theory goes like this, call a spade a spade and save lots of time by not having to play nice. The kicker is that only he should do it. It's all just more efficient if we build consensus by getting rid of the formalities and civilness that Wikipedia expects.

The good Dr. is self published. He is no more an "expert" on many things he writes about, then I am. I see no reason why his article, of all the articles there are about ADHD, should be one of only two links. --scuro (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[the two paragraphs above were inadvertently separated by text from me. Instead of simply moving the interspersed text down one paragraph, Scuro twice removed it entirely from the page, contrary to strong guidelines against deleting comment from others without permission (outside certain situations that don't apply here). The first time I restored it, it was with explanatory text clearly connecting Scuro's first paragraph with his second. For that, as it was, see the diff for Scuro's second removal: [9] This time, I have moved my text below his paragraph, which could have been done at any point (moving other's text around, if done for clarity, does not require permission.) The following is what he took out]

Scuro has been claiming that I've been offensively describing him and what he does. I've asked for citations showing this: none have been given. In fact, he's been harassing me on my Talk page, see WP:HUSH, and [10] [11] [12] [13](I've deleted them, actually the first comments I've deleted from my Talk page -- and there have been some beauts before -- but, of course, they remain in History for anyone to see.) (These are diffs for my removals, which show my responses, also removed: [14] [15] [16])

Above he describes my post -- which is mostly complimentary of Dr. Sobo -- and which only peripherally mentions Scuro, and not in any improper way, as "unkind," with an apparently sarcastic "Thanks." And then he describes Sobo in a manner that would surely qualify as offensive by the guidelines he's been describing on my Talk page. Hence I have been known to mention pots and kettles and the color black. Removing notable and properly contexted material, verifiable by anyone, is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, in spite of the wikilawyering; guidelines are designed for general situations, which is why rule number one for Wikipedia is Ignore All Rules. That's an often misunderstood guideline. It doesn't mean that this is an anarchy; in fact, IAR is a basic principle of common law: judges may generally ignore precedent and even statutory law in favor of "public policy," which basically means that they think it good for the public. But if they do so thoughtlessly, they may get reversed, or worse.

The removal of such material frequently results in POV imbalance. I attempted to negotiate and implement a compromise in Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, where there was a *brief* mention of controversy in the introduction with reference to this article here. I suggested that before controversy would be presented in detail in the main article -- if it ever is -- it would be appropriate for it to be so explored here. Controversy is not about primary facts, though primary facts may be explored in describing it. Instead, controversy is *about* opinion, so opinions may be cited, indeed, opinions *should* be cited. A common error with controversy articles is to simply summarize what editors may have seen or think. That is, in fact, if not itself sourced accurately, original research. WP:RS for attributed opinions requires only that the accuracy of what is attributed is verifiable. Dr. Sobo has a web site, and we may reasonably assume that what is there as his opinion or report may be attributed to him. Thus the claims made above about using this source are a guideline intended for "primary fact" used inappropriately for sourced opinion. With the main article, there would be the additional question, a difficult one, of balance, but with an article on the controversy, the sole criterion would be if Sobo is a notable critic or not. And there is sufficient proof for that, from what has been published.

[end of material deleted by Scuro.]

Sobo is a psychiatrist, who treats ADHD and prescribes drugs. Yes, the article in question is "self published." So? Sometimes expert opinion may be used if the person has been independently established, from reliable source, as an expert, but I'm avoiding that here,it can be complicated. He's a notable critic, however. His opinions are relevant. That he is also a cogent writer with a very good grasp of the subject, and not an anti-psychiatry fringe theorist, is merely frosting on the cake. His article, now available through the external link, is the best writing I've seen on the *internal* controversy among those working in the field, but if Scuro thinks there are other, better sources to link, by all means. In complex controversy articles, sometimes, there are classifications of external sources into POV positions, but classifying him would be difficult! It would be ridiculous to call him, for example, "anti-ADHD" or even "anti-drug." --Abd (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors note: Citations have been provided for Abd but then deleted again off Abd's talk page.--scuro (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ABD for your reasoned response. However, if you read on you would have discovered that I hate that "expert" term. To quote my introduction to the ADHD piece this "article's main point of view is that bad science, science totally lacking science's clarity about what is known and not known, is worse than sensible, if imprecise, literary speculations and reasoning." There is an "expert" industry out there that represents all that is bad in psychiatry. It waves data and technology like smoke and mirrors. This constantly citing "experts" is symptomatic (or illustrative) of the main issue. People turn to authority when an issue is not really understood. We should beware of those who call themselves experts because there lack of modesty about what we understood points to their hucksterism.

Despite Scuro's emphasis this is not about me. I would also appreciate it if you would take a look at the material he removed which is carefully referenced and illustrates how experiences alter the structure of the brain. Coincidentally I notice the thouoght police are thinking of removing the PET scan picture at the beginning of the article because it has an editorial tone (written by me). Nevertheless, it describes the factual issues for this picture which amazingly has been used over and over to prove the ADHD brain is different.

I have asked Scuro to identify himself, normally an issue for scholars standing behind their work, but despite the high tone of scholarly diligence Scuro has refused. As for his comparison of his qualifications to mine, what can I say? I hate to repeat all that I have put on this site before regarding my qualification because it is embarassing to have to brag , but if you go back you will find many references to my published and self published articles in the Yale Review, Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Psychiatric Times, etc, as the invited speaker at University of Alabama Psychiatry Department Grand Rounds. I have enclosed quotes from Anna Freud, Professor Bruce Charlton (Editor of Medical Hypothesis), Scott Peck (The Road Less Traveled) about my work, The fact that this very article will soon be included in a scholarly work "Rethinking ADHD" must qualify if for something on this particular page. You might also be interested in all the non experts that have chosen to feature one or more of my articles. (I don't know any of these people but unlike Scuro they have found what I have to say of special interest.) For instance: [17] go to P 8 of this handout of the Group Psychotherapy Association (I know no one in that association but obviously someone thought this article was worth their member's attention [18] [19](please note the other articles being listed) [20]or from that same site[21] (go to the item at the end of the chapter 1) [22] [23]

etc

There are many many other authors and sensible people who find what I have to say not only worth reading but want others to read my articles. This is not to brag but to place Scuro's perspective in the light it has earned. We have gone over all of this before. I ask again who are you mighty Scuro besides ruler of this page? Are you a bit uncomfortable about some of the positions you take? If not we have the problem in a nutshell, complete arrogance and shamelessness. --Ss06470 (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Sobo, let me suggest that you abstract yourself from the cat fights here. You have better things to do, even better things to do here. I don't have time to properly put your opinions into the article itself, but I will review attempts to do it. You might find that I take out what you put in, but, more likely, I'd try to frame it so that it meets Wikipedia policy. That is what good editors do: they don't censor, they frame, they take POV statements or unverified fact and create the context that makes it usable, if that is possible. POV editors will simply take out what they don't like, if they think they can get away with it.

As to "experts," I was using the word in a very ordinary sense. Let's hope anyone with a degree in a field and who has been working in that field is an "expert," in this sense. Wikipedia often attracts experts who write articles that disappear because somebody doesn't like the article and proposes it for deletion. Experts are frequently busy and don't see the proposed deletion, and the article may not be watched by anyone else. Poof! It's gone, and it no longer appears in the author's History. I've seen experts bewildered, "What happened to my article, I'm *sure* I wrote it!" And the most common result is that they go away with a very bad feeling about the unreliability of Wikipedia. At the same time, discussion among the "cabal" is, "How can we encourage experts to contribute?" My position is that Wikipedia is going to have to face this issue, the defacto "system" isn't working, articles that were once Featured article or Good article status are being derated because it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain them, as POV editors slice and dice them.

The article linked was very good. I've seen some of your other writing that I don't consider so good, but, then again, I may not have read it as carefully. As with many of us, there may be a constant temptation to move into polemic. It is highly irritating to have great ideas and insights and find that nobody will listen -- or at least nobody in the "establishment." However, there are ways around this, if the ideas are truly good. It just takes time and patience, and reacting with anger, unfortunately, will quickly get you tagged as fringe. You are not fringe. Your views in the linked article are quite easily recognized as mainstream *in substance*. Your criticism of practice is echoed by many working in your field, but it does not necessarily get due publication. We could cynically claim that if your ideas were more widely considered, prescription rates would go down, and that would hurt certain bottom lines; but there are also other reasons for really good ideas to not spread, for a time. Don't give up, and don't let "rage at the machine" ruin what must be an excellent professional life. Truth will out.

One more comment on "expert." There are famous pseudo-experts. That does not negate there being many real experts. Wikipedia is a bit stuck on "peer-reviewed publication," because such is a way of verifying at least some degree of notability of research and analysis. Problem is, "peer-review" in the real world is sometimes as spotty as editor review on Wikipedia. There is no mechanism for measuring it that can move quickly enough to respond to changes in the field. It can take decades for what should have been obvious, sometimes, to percolate into broad acceptance. I still see frequent reference in newspaper articles on diet to "avoid saturated fats," even though the alleged science behind that was *never* consensus among the actual experts, was politically promoted, and has been thoroughly debunked by more recent work -- even though it was already clear that the recommendations were bunk from the beginning; contrary research was simply ignored in favor of an imagined benefit to the public. This is thoroughly documented in Gary Taubes' latest book, Good Calories, Bad Calories, and he is not a fringe theorist, he's a noted science writer ,and his interest is *science*, and he merely turned his knowledge of scientific methods to the field of diet. But nutrition "experts" continue on as if nothing had happened. Research, however, has turned the corner. --Abd (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you also for your unkind words good Dr., then again you have a good example to follow. The pettiness of your comments speaks volumes. Now that you two have done the huff and puff can you both finally get down to the issue of improving the article and sticking on content? It seems that you both want to do anything but. Further examples of negative criticism will be followed by warnings.--scuro (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"He's a notable critic, however" - Notable critic of what?

"Sobo is a psychiatrist, who treats ADHD and prescribes drugs"....from his statements he would appear to speculate about many things he is not qualified to speculate about ie a)This would all be fine if solid research supported the argument that ADHD is a biological illness. But the evidence is sparse or ridiculously exaggerated, b)We do not know what causes ADHD and how the various symptoms come into being, c) We don’t know what chemicals in the brain cause the syndrome and where in the brain to look even if we could get inside the skull to take our sample, d) My hat is off to them as it is to computer geeks and all other masters of technology...the assumption that, if the part of the brain that is supposed to light up when the subject is doing a task isn’t lighting up, it must mean that something is physically wrong with that part of the brain, is not supported by the findings.

"That he is also a cogent writer with a very good grasp of the subject, and not an anti-psychiatry fringe theorist, is merely frosting on the cake".-I don't agree with that claim. Most of all writing style has nothing to do with qualifying something for inclusion within wikipedia.

The above, are opinions and self published. Even if he were to talk about stimulant medication, something he may deal with regularly...I have to ask are the lone opinions of a single psychiatrist or neurologist noteworthy? This is why wikipedia likes secondary sources. --scuro (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about opinion. Opinion is the subject of this article. Sobo's article, while relevant to the controversy, is actually mainstream, but ... even if it were fringe, he's sufficiently notable that it could be linked here. Proof can be supplied. If there is a concern that the site is biased, note that WP:EXT provides for this: balance it with other sites. However, Sobo isn't fringe. At all. This is criticism of medical practice, by a professional working in the field, and clearly familiar with it. He *diagnoses* ADHD. He *prescribes* medication. He clearly knows the literature. He accepts DSM-IV and its necessity and usefulness, *and* criticizes its misapplication. And then Scuro -- about whom we know next to nothing -- claims to know better? In any case, there is a policy issue here, I've seen it come up many times, so this one would be worth taking all the way to ArbComm, though I highly doubt that will be necessary. I reverted Scuro's removal of the link. The next step, if Scuro wants to pursue it, would be more discussion here, followed by RFC. The Controversies article is POV imbalanced without this kind of reference. --Abd (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Abd are you really admin?

Abd...thanks again for making it personal and discussing me instead of content. You don't learn, do you? Are you really an administrator? I have NEVER seen an administrator act as you do.

As I have already clearly pointed out, the good Dr. steps beyond his field of expertise and make judgments that he clearly isn't qualified to make. If you link to the article then we get all those POV pushing viewpoints along with some decent insights. It is self published and there are excellent primary and probably even secondary sources that state most of what he states. I would be more comfortable if it was used as a source for specific points about the practice of psychiatry...may be unique insights specific to that article. Please bring it to Arbcom if that is your desire. The link was added by you, the onus is on you to give suitable reasons for inclusion according to Wiki guidelines. It will be removed without a sensible reason for it's inclusion. I would like to see info on including self published citations and guidelines or essays on controversy articles. That could change my mind. --scuro (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, isn't ADHD treated by psychiatrists? Medical treatment of ADHD, when handled by a specialist, is handled by psychiatrists. Family physicians may handle some routine prescriptions, but, in my experience, formal diagnosis has always been handled by a psychiatrist. Sobo is a psychiatrist in private practice, having graduated forty years ago, and he treats ADHD. He knows the field. He has also been published, though, so far, not on this specific topic, but on the more general topic of what he sees as the abuse of diagnostic categories in the practice of psychiatry, see Psychiatric Times, 2001, On the Banality of Positive Thinking.

Apparently, Dr. Sobo is (or was at one time) the directory of psychiatry for New Milford Hospital, New Milford, Connecticut. That hospital still lists him as the only affiliated psychiatrist, see [24].

[25] discusses him; the web site is that of Safe Harbor: "Safe Harbor was founded in 1998 in the wake of growing public dissatisfaction with the unwanted effects of orthodox psychiatric treatments such as medication and shock therapy. Seeking to satisfy the desire for safer, more effective treatments, Safe Harbor is dedicated to educating the public, the medical profession, and government officials on research and treatments that, minimally, do no harm and, optimally, cure the causes of severe mental symptoms. Our primary thrust is education on the medical causes of severe mental symptoms and the use of nutritional and other natural treatments." Absolutely, an advocacy organization, but, once again, I;ll remind editors that this is an article about the controversy. Safe Harbor is part of the subject of this article.

There are other published articles by Sobo, (in peer-reviewed journals) (though not many), and he is also quoted in published articles on the topic of interest or related.

Now, I would ask, given that in other related articles, there are citations and external references to blatantly POV-pushing websites, why the strong focus on this particular external link, which is, on its face, a sober and reasonably balanced exploration of the use of DSM-IV categories in actual practice, specifically including the ADHD diagnosis? If there are better sites to point to, showing the controversy, by all means, put them up, and if this one ends up on the short side, *then* it would be taken out. However, I must conclude, based on this and other behavior, that there is an agenda here to exclude all cogently critical material about the controversy, thus supporting, in appearance, claims which have been inserted into this article attempting to associate the controversy with Scientology and fringe theorists and "social critics"; alternatively, perhaps there is some personal animus regarding Dr. Sobo. That would be unfortunate, but .... [[User:Scuro is an single-purpose account. I have seen that fact used to block a contentious user, though, more normally, SPAs are welcome, and many editors start out that way. For convenience, here is his contribution record: Special:Contributions/Scuro.

(The above about other related articles and links is not an argument for inclusion based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but is merely noting that linking to Dr. Sobo's article would be an extremely mild approach to the edges of the guidelines, comparatively, there is far, far worse in this family of articles. I have Antipsychiatry in mind, and antipsychiatry.com.)

Now, Scuro asks if I'm an administrator. What if I was? Surely Scuro knows that were I an administrator, it would be *moot*. I couldn't use my admin tools to deal with Scuro, because I'm involved in a dispute with him. In this matter, I'd be simply an ordinary user. My knowledge of policy and guidelines is comparable to *some* administrators, a few perhaps, not to that of others. The true authority on policy is the consensus of the community (technically, advising ArbComm and the WikiMedia Foundation). I have no way of reliably predicting how WP process would deal with a specific point, it can be quite quirky. But I do spend a good amount of my time here reading AfDs, RFCs, and Arbitrations, Wikipedia process is actually a primary interest of mine. Now, back to the point:

Dr. Sobo isn't claiming that ADHD doesn't exist. He isn't claiming that drugs shouldn't be used in the treatment of ADHD. He is, from the point of view of a psychiatric practitioner, working with real patients, discussing the implications of a prescriber being satisfied with a DSM category as a full explanation of what is going on with the patient, end of topic. He's saying that this is poor practice. He considers the DSM as a useful tool, particularly in research. All this is why I call him mainstream. He is not denying "scientific consensus." (Those who do deny the consensus have sometimes quoted him, though.)

As to "please bring it to ArbComm," that certainly wouldn't be the first step, as I said above. The link was in this article for a long time, but in the text or as a note. It was removed recently by Scuro; I put it back in as an external link, because it requires less proof (in my opinion). Controversies articles commonly contain links to advocacy sites. This one used to have *many.* In looking over History, I see that the article has been slowly but surely demolished; one can see who has been seriously active doing it. As is common, articles can be poorly sourced. Good editors will find sources for what can be saved (which can involve attributing opinion, for example, thus leaving *only* a notability question) and not simply remove improperly sourced or phrased material. This article, instead of becoming more informative on the controversy, has gradually covered it over, made it more obscure. I'd suggest anyone interested in what has happened here look at the article History, i.e., back to the origin of this article as a fork from Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. A persistent POV editor, if nobody calls him on it, can outlast most casual editors. It's about time that this is confronted. Based on the history, it's not just going to go away when the editor wakes up and realizes the beauty of the WikiWay, the philosophical depth of WP:NPOV, and the power of seeking consensus. However, one step at a time. I've made *one* edit here that Scuro took out, and I put it back, giving my reasoning here, and Scuro indicates an intention to take it out again. My intention is to work on this one edit; the rest of the article is a mess, but it's useless to try to improve it with hatchets raining down. If we can agree to keep this one external link until there is better, then we can move on. If not, RFC would come next. And I'd appreciate the opinions of other editors. This is *not* about me imposing my views here. It is about me, instead, standing up for all those who would want to know about that linked article. I've seen other articles damaged by POV editors who insisted on strict adherence to some rather shaky interpretations of standards; in one case, links were removed because the web sites contained advertising. In that case, one of the links removed had proved to be the most useful source of information I've ever found on the topic, it's a public forum with lots of very knowledgeable contributors, links to articles with discussion by experts (and everyone else), etc. That was really my first use of Wikipedia, reading that article and following the links. It is now a shell of what it used to be. Our motto should be: "Half the sum of human knowledge." --Abd (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove picture?

I cited Cohen because thepicture caption needed a much less editorial-tone caption. It lacked citation - I found one. If the critique of Z-'s brainscans is being rejected, then I suggest we remove the picture altogether, for it certainly serves no purpose otherwise, if we are not referencing critiques of it. --Thesodon (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It comes from a landmark study. It is notable. --scuro (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's notable as proof for ADHD's existence, right? Why is it on the controversy page? --Thesodon (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Because those who believe ADHD is fake also believe the image is a fraud?--scuro (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, there is fairly obvious criticism of the usage of those images to prove the ADHD brain is different. First of all, any image is an "anecdote." However, ADHD patients, by definition, represent a class of patients who will be less likely to follow directions in where they put their attention. Whether they are *capable* of such intention is a separate question: as has been often noted, ADHD patients may give *extraordinary* attention to activities that attract them. So the images may simply be showing that ADHD patients aren't paying attention to the task assigned. No matter how we slice it, the images show a difference in *activity*. Now, surely patterns of external activity will be reflected in -- indeed caused by -- patterns of internal activity. The images are showing a deeper indication of *behavior.* That's like saying your computer is different from mine because what is on the screen is different, even though the computers were built to the same specifications, at the same factory, with the same components. The *programming* is different. That what is on the screen is different, that my computer might respond more quickly than yours or vice-versa, is not a hardware difference, it's a software difference. Software is "learned behavior."

But, of course, there *are* hardware differences, both due to genetic and developmental influences. I find the idea that ADHD -- or any behavioral pattern, like homosexuality, which Clockback likes to bring up -- is not "genetic" preposterous. To me, the question is one of balance. On the homosexuality question, the controversy rages. But everyone seems to assume that "heterosexuality" is genetic, and, indeed, it must be, and "normal" means that most people would be genetically disposed toward same-sex attraction and coupling. But where there is a trait, there is variation, *always*, so that there would not be variations on this would actually be unusual. So the *real* question is "how much." How much of these behaviors is inherited, or developmentally caused (i.e., malnutrition in infancy, early trauma which causes abnormal neural interconnections,, sensory deprivation), and how much is some thing else is the question. But what is "something else?" The non-genetic factors I mentioned would cover, for example, parental abuse, neglect, or even, if we take the judgement out of it implicit in "trauma," simple differences in how children have interacted with their environment. Maybe a child has a very smart parent with wide active interests, and so takes this on themselves, which can manifest negatively as boredom with insufficiently challenging tasks in school.

What I liked about Sobo's article was that it takes all this in, it is not set on one polarized view, and, definitely, he is strongly suggesting that we look at patients as individuals, and correctly identifies cookie-cutter approaches (Meets DSM-IV, bring me the prescription pad, end of topic) as very limited, likely to miss, say, environmental influences which should properly be addressed. I've experienced this up close and personal, as a patient. I was prescribed Wellbutrin almost ten years ago. ADHD was diagnosed, but also mild depression. No education, no therapy, just take these pills. I experienced very little effect from a dose so high that it was pushing risk of seizure. But my wife said my demeanor was denicer, so, since I didn't feel any side-effects, I continued to take it. Nine years later, working with attachment disorder in my children (adopted, attachment disorder is normal for them), it was suggested that I check out EMDR. I did, and lucked into seeing the top EMDR therapist in our area, who promptly recommended I (1) read Driven to Distraction, and (2) see a psychiatrist and get better meds. My guess is that I'd be about $500,000 richer if that original shrink had done a better job. But you never know....

As to the picture itself, though, I don't think it *must* to be in this article; however, pictures make for better presentation. The picture really needs thorough discussion, the caption should be very brief. Just what the picture is, not what it supposedly means. That is for text, not picture caption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 15:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Essentially, there is fairly obvious criticism of the usage of those images to prove the ADHD brain is different." - I can find a source for the criticism, I have yet to see any institution or expert in the field say that the image is proof!! These people don't think like that. They may point to it as one piece of evidence in a large body of evidence...and that is about it...or they may not.

"...as has been often noted, ADHD patients may give *extraordinary* attention to activities that attract them." - noted by whom? The literature that I have read indicates that those with ADHD have no extraordinary gifts and their ability to focus on all things is no better then average. It is most often worse, even with things like video games.

"What I liked about Sobo's article was that it takes all this in, it is not set on one polarized view, and, definitely, he is strongly suggesting that we look at patients as individuals, and correctly identifies cookie-cutter approaches (Meets DSM-IV, bring me the prescription pad, end of topic)" Yes he does a decent job of that but then he takes potshots on topics he is not qualified to really have an opinion on. He is polarized. Consequently the article is clearly POV pushing. So find a better source to say the same thing. --scuro (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I found a source that says something that should be in the article *or* in an external link, properly framed. If a better source is found, fine, but this one is adequate in context. I find POV "potshots" all the time in peer-reviewed publications. However, I didn't notice Sobo taking such, sticking to topics which specifically impact the practice of psychiatry. He may be as qualified on that as anyone. Again, let me remind Scuro and others reading this that this is an article on controversy, and there is actually wide controversy over many aspects of ADHD: its very existence as a legitimate "disorder," its physical basis (not whether or not it has a physical basis, that is the previous one, but what *is* the basis -- or -- bases) for the identified syndrome?), its operational nature (how does the underlying condition manifest in the identified symptoms, and what other influences there might be besides genetics and developmental disorders), its implications (including political, legal, and social issues), and, where Sobo really comes in, how to treat it. Sobo addresses the definitional and nature problem specifically as to how theories and subtle assumptions about them, not explicitly stated, can impact practice negatively, causing some physicians to think that they are finished when they write an ADHD diagnosis on a chart and prescribe a standard medication for it. Sobo would claim that the doctor can and should do that, when appropriate, but that this is merely a beginning. The belief that ADHD is a chemical imbalance is certainly not "wrong," in that chemical imbalance (or, more neutrally, "condition") is associated with ADHD, without doubt, but Scuro makes the point that it then leads into a particular mindset: obviously, treat a chemical imbalance with chemicals. This is certainly an approach that benefits some interest groups, that have a lot of money, which equals influence, to toss about. But that isn't Sobo's point. He is primarily writing for practitioners, I'd say, and then for the public, which should, if possible, understand the situation better. I have ADHD. I take methylphenidate. Will I do this for the rest of my life? Maybe. Maybe not. I certainly don't want my psychiatrist, though, to think of me as a cookie and his prescription pad as a cutter. I survived without medication, and even did well in certain ways, for 55 years, and without the right medication for another 8. For me, most of the treatment isn't about medication, and there are alternative ways to generate some of the effects of medication. A good practitioner will be aware of all the aspects, and, frankly, if I were in northern Connecticut, I'd be looking Sobo up. Though I have an excellent psychiatrist here. In partnership with him, I design my own treatment. I expect to find, on Wikipedia, on any topic of interest, good and reasonably thorough information, with links provided to support deeper research. Indeed, Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable, but is frequently used by students -- with professorial approval -- as a source for links, reasonably vetted as being on-point, thus making student research more efficient. Scuro is cutting away at what may be part of Wikipedia's success. If it's not here, it can quickly be found from what's here.

This article isn't even close to violating WP:LINKFARM. We need more links, not fewer. --Abd (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

for the time being I no longer assume good faith on the part of Abd

Virtually every recent post and many past posts of Abd, makes personal comments about me. He deleted all (four to date) of my warnings off of his talk page. see ->(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scuro#this_is_what_Abd_deleted_from_his_talk_page_and_I_assume_he_wants_no_one_to_see) I see no further reason to communicate with him as long as he continues this practice which goes against guidelines and which I have constantly brought to his attention. Abd, if you would like work on consensus I suggest that you delete all personal references to myself from your recent posts and I will respond. Baring that, further action will be taken. --scuro (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Scuro has been warned that he is in violation of Wikipedia policy on harassment, see WP:HUSH. Summary of what I've said about him? Not necessary to repeat much. Just look at his contributions, draw your own conclusions. Special:Contributions/Scuro. He is essentially a long-term single purpose account, might possibly be a sock puppet (certainly not proven, but the behavior matches sock behavior, i.e., sophisticated edits and serious activity from day one), and the consistent removal of verifiable material about the controversies, from articles on the controversies. In addition, he has, in the name of complaining about personal attacks, made personal attacks; and has made repeated warnings, which, until tonight, were without any substantiation. When I realized that the multiple warnings were a form of harassment, I took the unusual, for me, step of removing them from my Talk page. He put them back. That's a confirmation of harassment, see the guideline. I have commented on editor behavior, which is often necessary, and, if it stops short of harassment or personal attack, is not a policy violation (which doesn't mean that it is wise). I *respond* to Scuro, describing what I've found, and this is the substance behind his complaint. Here is the edit where he restores deleted material from my Talk page: [26]. And here is the sole reference he has provided as evidence of my allegedly offensive behavior:

"What I find problematic about Scuro's expressed position is that it seems to be attempting to convince us or Clockback that there there is no sense in even trying. I'd rather wait for response from Clockback or others, and then see what to make of it. Otherwise it becomes a version of "Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up." Clockback, Scuro does not control the article". ~~ [Scuro's note: from the "Request for an article re-write to achieve balance/NPV"] on the ADHD talk page --Abd (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"But, it's true. You did not ask me for advice. Suit yourself."~~ [Scuro's note: from the "Request for an article re-write to achieve balance/NPV" on the ADHD talk page]--Abd (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I must say it is totally beyond me how this is what he has claimed I've been doing, that this was worthy of *four* warnings. I was advising him as to how his writing would be seen by Clockback. And then I turned to Clockback, whom I was was trying to encourage to submit sourced material, and told him the truth, Scuro does not control this article. The "personal comment" in this is that Scuro "seems to be attempting to convince us" of something. This is some kind of abuse? And the second quote? He did not ask me for advice. Does he contest that? If anyone is interested in the warnings and my repeated requests for examples, they are in all their original glory in History for my Talk, and since I'm not filing any kind of complaint -- yet -- I'm not going to the trouble of providing diffs, there isn't a lot to wade through. --Abd (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:TRUCE Abd, peace can be achieved if we both follow the conventions of Wikipedia. There are two current behaviours which are impeding my editing ability. I ask that you stop cutting my posts in half with your edits and I also ask that you focus on content and not other editors WP:NPA. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia". Can we not solve this here now? --scuro (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've copied the above discussion on to both Scuro's and Abd's talk pages. Interested parties can take their pick of the two on where they want to continue this discussion. It's just getting too off topic in here as it is. -- Ned Scott 03:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly it became more about editors than about the topic. However, editor *behavior* here and in relation to this article isn't off topic; it should be noted that Scuro removed my comments from this page, twice, on the excuse that some of my text separated two paragraphs of his. Removing other's text from Talk is generally prohibited, but moving it around to correct formatting or placement problems is not. The first time I restored it, I added notes to connect his two paragraphs, so the error became truly harmless. When he took it out again, I then restored it, keeping his paragraphs together. Hopefully this will resolve this one issue, and I appreciate Mr. Scott's efforts, though I'm not sure copying all that material adds anything, those involved have seen it already. I'm only adding clearly justified warnings to Scuro's Talk, and he has no obligation to respond to them, at least no obligation to me. --Abd (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

When you constantly judge other editors and focus on personality instead of content, any faulty action, can, and most likely will be construed to be another form of harassment. That is especially true if the same mistake happens again and the issue was clearly stated in the edit summary. Thank you for fixing your mistake.--scuro (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Abd, who made you the Grand Poobah of Wikipedia? If there is a problem with my editing behaviour there are many informal and formal ways to deal with it, then to publicly, and constantly rebuke me. You, who knows wiki policy better then most, should know this. I choose not to respond to your numerous judgments because I see them as a form of flaming or harassment. I believe at least one other editor feels the same way. --scuro (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

ABD I appreciated your taking up the cause and your advice to me to use my time more wisely, but until now, when I would check out the site I had to stand up to Scuro alone. If you go back over the various other posters that have attempted to reaason with Scuro they (and I) inevitably gave up after awhile. There was no choice. He will not relinguish his position as policeman for this sight.

That aside, I noted in my posting that Scuro not only eliminated my link but a whole series of carefully referenced links that demonstrate that behavior can change brain structureItalic text. (users of braile, London taxi drivers etc) This is crucial information because it puts in perspective research purporting to show that ADHD mustItalic text be a biological illness since brain differences can be shown. In your discussion of my views on ADHD you correctily understood my agreement that the behaviors described in DSM IV do exist in a whole lot of children. I don't really argue against the obseravation that stimulants help many of these children. But my explanation for all of this is not biological but a relationship to necessary but burdensome tasks that has not taken place successfully. That is why they have absolutely no difficulty paying attention to activities that are fun. The stimulants make work fun (see my article) In any case if you could return those links it would be very helpful.

I hope you can hold out as long as possible, but so far no one has been able to stop Scuro from his mission. It would be great if there were some kind of authoritative figure from Wikepdia who could review his history and send him to do damage elsewhere My best wishes. --Ss06470 (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have communicated to you that you should stick to content, several times on the talk pages, but have seen no change in your behaviour. I will not respond to your flaming. I have posted a warning on your talk page, enough is enough.

On Abd's request for all editors to work on this article I have: edited, moved, and deleted a fair bit of the article. Most edits have an edit summary. It was a mess and still could use major editing. I'm not perfect so if you believe text shouldn't have been altered or deleted, please post the edit in talk. I believe I have made this request of you more then once.

If you or Abd believe half of what you post about me on Wikipedia, may I suggest WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDIATION. To constantly publicly rebuke a fellow editor and not follow any of the mediation forums available could very well be seen as a form of harassment. I suggest that you and Abd stop now. --scuro (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete entire paragraph

Hi, I am a new visitor to this article, I hope a fresh POV might be useful. The entire paragraph about Ritalin abuse strikes me as totally irrelevant to this article. It isn't about ADHD at all- it is about the potential abuse of Ritalin by people who obtain it. I would strike the whole thing. Thoughts? Kaisershatner (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good point, and it makes sense to logically separate the two issues. The article on pain management, for example doesn't include a discussion of heroin abuse.--Vannin (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I third the opinion an I am going to eliminate it. Sifaka ^talk 02:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

major changes

I was disappointed with the non-NPOV of this article and made some aggressive revisions to restore some parts to balance and re-include sections which went missing. Some later changes may have been lost due to some intense reshuffling and I am sorry beforehand. Please check the edit history to see the changes that I made. Sifaka ^talk 02:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be quite appropriate to aggressively remove POV and unsourced claims from the article, and it may happen -- as it has happened -- that properly sourced controversy is removed as part of this, perhaps because it was not framed, or was considered non-notable (perhaps inappropriately) by the editor removing it. However, this should be seen as reducing the article to a shell that we all agree is accurate as far as it goes. It may not be -- indeed it is unlikely to be -- balanced, giving due weight to all notable aspects of the controversy. So then we would expect that various users would add back in individual items, and we can look at them one at a time. What has been happening is that very large numbers of edits are being made, sometimes by people with a POV to express -- or repress -- and the article has gone into serious flux.

What I suggest is that we work specifically on what is necessary to reduce the article to a properly sourced minimum, with all sources being represented in an NPOV manner. I don't think it will have to go all the way down to a stub. All the prior material is there in history, and we can look at old versions to recover it. It would be appropriate to list, here in Talk, all remaining POV issues, so that we can address them and make sure we find consensus -- or at least substantial consensus -- on what remains. Then the article can begin to grow in an orderly fashion. Consensus process cannot deal with constant flux, because every change will likely be contested, with some editors simply giving up. So let's agree on a core and then build on that. --Abd (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

controversies and controversy articles as related to wiki guidelines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28all%29#Controversy_articles_and_controversy_sections_in_general I asked about controversy at the village pump. I agree with what they stated.--scuro (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with it too. The problem, however, is the reason why Rule Number One for Wikipedia is ignore all rules. The Village Pump question was asked in the abstract. So editors answered in the abstract. Each controversy article, in general, raises its own issues. I've explored and explained most of this before in Talk here. There are what I consider accidental implications from what the two respondents wrote in response to the question that I can expect would be used (and *were* used in the past) to improperly exclude material from this article. I don't think those editors intended those implications; they were writing generally, and the guidelines are written generally.

In a real situation, even where there is apparently applicable precedent at common law, a judge may set it all aside based on Public policy (law). She is "ignoring rules." That is, having understood the rules and the immediate situation, she sees that a literal application of rules developed for other situations, allegedly similar, do not fully satisfy the purpose, in the immediate case, of the rules, which is to benefit or protect the public or society, here the project, the encyclopedia.

So, I'd suggest, instead of simply pointing to a discussion which does little more than confirm what is already in the policies and guidelines, how about an explanation of how this applies to this article? I've done it previously. The question was asked at the Village Pump, Is self-published material and fringe material allowed on a CA [controversy article]?

Ask the question in general, you will get a general answer. Ask a specific question in a specific answer, you may get a specific answer that is different. The general guidelines do address this, and the general answer is "usually not, but sometimes." It depends on a number of factors, and the guidelines deliberately do not nail it down. The guidelines, when they give exceptions to a rule, do not generally claim that there are no additional exceptions, and often we see this explicitly stated, but sometimes not. So a wikilawyer can go to the guidelines and say, "See! It's right here! You are wrong.!" Wikilawyers, not uncommonly, go down in flames, apparently perplexed at how they could be "right" and still be censured. It is because they lost sight of the goal of all the rules and instead insisted upon the letter. The guidelines give a general sense of how the community is likely to respond to a dispute. They don't bind. Policies, in theory, bind, but in practice, they are just as subject to revision based on public policy, they are merely very long-standing principles considered to almost universally apply. Almost is the key. If I violate a policy, I'd better be pretty sure what I'm doing will benefit the project and be seen as such when explained, and pretty careful, for the chances I'll be sustained are fairly slim. Violate a guideline, it might be wikitrout time. Usually what will happen is that I'll be wasting my time with edits that will be reverted, sooner or later, and more time wasted arguing about it. But success may happen more often, particularly if a local consensus of editors appears. Talk, indeed, should be aimed at finding consensus, not at establishing, merely, the "correctness" of one view or another.

As to the specific question, we'd have to look at a specific example. But first, let's get rid of one question, asked at the Village Pump in a manner quite likely to give an answer that the questioner wants to hear, but which, in fact, is entirely the wrong question, because the answer is obvious. It is "Does a controversy article have a different set of rules from other articles?

Of course it doesn't! The same rules apply to all articles. And this has all been explained here. The difference between an article on X and an X: Controversies article is that they have different subjects. The X article is, perhaps, about some "fact." For the Controversies article, opinions about X are the facts. That is, it is a fact that these opinions exist. Establish that fact with a verifiable source, policy is satisfied as to verifiability. So what remains is notability, which is quite a different topic, and a more difficult one. Arguments rage every day on Wikipedia over whether or not something or some opinion is notable. However, one thing is clear: a particular opinion about ADHD, if it relates to controversy, is more notable for the Controversies article than it is for the main article (unless it is thoroughly mainstream, in which case it might be, in a sense, the other way, or, in another sense, no different). Controversies articles are about opinion. They can and should include fact meeting reliable source guidelines that can be used to place opinions in context; Controversies articles should not be limited to "He said, she said." Rather, "He said 'I did not have sex with that woman.' "he said, 'Yes he did,'" and subsequent testimony and legal decision established that he was using "sex" narrowly and contrary to full disclosure, and, etc. [source for fact]."

Sobo's article? It's self-published, but for various reasons I won't repeat here, he may be considered to be an expert in the field, and I've seen no challenge to this from experts in the field, only from certain persistent editors here. Self-published material from experts *may* be used, particularly in an article on the subject. Is Sobo the subject? Not exactly. His opinions as an expert, particularly one with some recognition, are the subject. In articles regarding controversy over a topics, I have acted to remove advocacy organizations as references for claims of fact, but I've put them back in as references for opinion, or sometimes attributed report, both in main articles and in subarticles. And these actions have been sustained, and the edits have persisted, in the face of editors actually affiliated with those organizations. As biased sources, they do not meet, for fact, WP:RS. But as known and notable organizations, the opinions and arguments they make are notable and may be reported with attribution. This is especially true if these opinions are necessary for article balance. It can easily happen that one side of a controversy has a relative monopoly on access to published sources, but that we may, through other means, establish notability of an opinion in the real world. Google hits are commonly used for this; they are certainly far from conclusive, and they never establish a fact other than possible notability or frequency of reference within the still-narrow -- but different -- world of on-line availability.

I consider, at this point, Sobo's opinions and his article to be sufficiently notable to warrant use in the article. That does not establish how it is used. He is an expert, and, where his expression of a fact is not controverted elsewhere, we may be able to use his writings to present fact, but I'd be pretty short of allowing it for raw fact, rather, I'd want to see, "According to Dr. Simon Sobo, the moon is not made of green cheese."[reference to self-published document]." The fact reported in the article is verifiable from the reference, and the only question is notability and article balance. Trying to wikilawyer it out may meet with some resistance. And thanks to Scuro for asking the question on the Village Pump. it gives me the opportunity to broaden the discussion. Based on a fair amount of experience, the matter of Controversy articles needs some broader attention. Wikilawyers have used the unclarity of the guidelines on this elsewhere as well!

--Abd (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You raise a lot of good points. I think the article {at least the current version is moving right direction in terms a good Wikipedia controversy article. ADHD is a controversial topic in the scientific community and in larger society (though they are not necessarily arguing over the same things) and merits a controversy article. What I think is good about the article is that there is a healthy "criticism-response" going on in most sections, which while sometimes lacking in organization and the encyclopedic tone, has decent content. The article is still quite rough though and needs sources and attention from someone who knows what both sides of various controversies are (especially the inter-scientific ones) and is willing to put aside biases and lay out the arguments and counterarguments in an NPOV fashion. Sifaka ^talk 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added comment to the Village Pump section on this.[27] [28]. While certainly the Village Pump may be a place to ask questions about guidelines and policy, it is not a guideline or policy page, and answers there often are inadequate to resolve difficult issues, unless they happen to attract sufficient interest. Rather, if there is an unclarity in a guideline, the place to ask, most appropriately, would be the Talk page for the relevant guideline, where those who have participated in writing the guideline will be watching. Watching the Village Pump is an exercise I mostly avoid! However, I'm not asking this question there because I consider the guidelines already adequate. What was offensive about the question on the guideline page is that it appears to be trolling for a specific answer, and the question was framed in such a way as to invite that answer. There is no exception for controversies pages, just as there would be no exception for pages about myths, philosophical views on a topic, etc; what is different about controversies about X pages and X pages is that the subject of the former is different from the subject of the latter, so different comparisons are made when determining notability. That's it. This has been explained here, again and again, but the question was asked as if the issue was "Is there some exception for controversy pages such that self-published material can be used." And, of course, the answer was no. There is no special exception for *any* kind of page. But, per guidelines, there is also no fixed rule that self-published material cannot be used under any circumstances, and thus simply quoting WP:SELFPUB or "self-published" may be adequate as an explanation of removal in the absence of controversy (most such citations that we see in articles are indeed inappropriate), but it is not adequate when it is already clear that there is no consensus among the editors about the notability and usability of the source here, and to make such an edit under these circumstances is disruptive. If an editor makes edits unilaterally to impose a personal interpretation of guidelines (even if superficially confirmed in the abstract), and particularly when such edits are repetitive (i.e., have already been reverted or undone once, and have the same effect as prior edits that were opposed), this is, itself, contrary to guidelines and policy (exceptions certainly exist, but an editor better be very solidly grounded in the community consensus in assuming an exception; I've done it reverting WP:SOCK, WP:COI, and WP:SPA edits, and, even then, I could have been *legitimately* blocked if an admin disagreed). *Discuss* controversial changes, and don't make them without consensus. If consensus cannot be found, then there is dispute resolution.

Given the presence of highly contentious and very active editors here, I've been mostly staying away from editing the article, waiting for the smoke to clear. The particular quote that Scuro removed from Dr. Simon Sobo,[29], was in the wrong place, I suspect, in any case. Is the argument of Sobo really "rejected" as claimed? Are, indeed, there any sources rejecting his specific arguments. Here is what was in the article:

Another source of skepticism is that most people with ADHD have no difficulties concentrating when they are doing something that interests them, whether it is educational or entertainment.[14] However, these objections have been rejected by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Surgeon General.[30]

If "self-published" material is not allowed (and that is a grey area), how about using a magazine page, referencing only the issue, and not the page numbers, article title, author, to make a very broad and quite likely synthetic claim? This may actually violate, not merely a guideline, but policy. Is Dr. Sobo mentioned on that Skeptical inquirer page, or his *specific* arguments, and his argument "rejected"? Allow me to be skeptical and an inquirer! Are all objections raised "rejected" in that article? If so, then we really need to see the article! Is it on-line? If so, it should be directly cited. In any case, I'm inserting a more direct reference to it, and if anyone knows where the article itself may be found (my guess is that it is not on the web), please fix the reference to show direct access; otherwise if anyone has the article, can exact quotes be provided? Has this question been addressed here before?

As to the substance, what Sobo reports and what was in the article based on his self-published article is really not controvesial. It's true. People with ordinary ADHD can focus under certain conditions, easily labelled as "interest." Interest is an aspect of attention. And it's a complex issue. What might be problematic is the placement of the comment from him in the section where it was sitting before Scuro removed it. See the article on Hyperfocus. --Abd (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As posted before about Sobo and his self published article. One reason self published articles are not allowed on wikipedia is no one is fact checking and that can lead to POV of pushing. We see that in his article. Sobo is a psychiatrist, who treats ADHD and prescribes drugs yet from his statements he would appear to speculate about many things he is not qualified to speculate about ie:

• a)This would all be fine if solid research supported the argument that ADHD is a biological illness. But the evidence is sparse or ridiculously exaggerated,
• b)We do not know what causes ADHD and how the various symptoms come into being,
• c) We don’t know what chemicals in the brain cause the syndrome and where in the brain to look even if we could get inside the skull to take our sample,
• d) My hat is off to them as it is to computer geeks and all other masters of technology...the assumption that, if the part of the brain that is supposed to light up when the subject is doing a task isn’t lighting up, it must mean that something is physically wrong with that part of the brain, is not supported by the findings.--scuro (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) (1) it is not correct that self-published articles are "not allowed on Wikipedia." Rather they are not ordinarily considered reliable source. There are exceptions. Now, articles that are reliable source often contain a certain level of speculation. An expert in a field may state opinions. What Sobo has stated here is actually mainstream. The evidence regarding ADHD as a "biological illness" is indeed problematic, for lots of reasons. For starters, there seems to be some easy assumption that we know what a "biological illness" is and what ADHD would be if it is not a "biological illness." A mechanical illness? What isn't known is to what degree ADHD symptoms are caused by genetics, structural problems considered as such (perhaps due to physical trauma directly injuring brain tissue), chemical imbalance, and all of these could be considered "biological illness," or, on the other hand, by response to environment (functional or otherwise), learned behaviors, traumatic memories. Given, however, that "learning" and "behavior" and "memory" are biologically encoded, we could claim that it is all biological; but there is, in practice, a distinction made, just as we distinguish hardware problems from software problems, although all software problems exist as physical patterns (magnetization, charge storage, etc.). All behavior is essentially a form of memory (i.e, instinctive or learned response), so all behavior is biological, but ... we tend to call what is inherited and structural in some gross form "biological," and what exists as patterns with some kind of symbolic meaning or effect as not biological.

We do not know what causes ADHD and how the various symptoms come into being. If Scuro thinks we do, I'd love to see reliable source on that. Sobo's statement is a negative, referring to "we." That is, experts on the disorder or on the possible biology that enables it. Sources I've seen claim that a certain percentage of ADHD is genetically related. I think there has been some extensive interpretation of sources in this article and on this issue, claims are being made that are not supported by the sources. The comment about the images is simply an obvious question. What he wrote really isn't controversial; if someone makes that assumption, they are making assumptions not supported by the "findings." Again, if an editor thinks that Sobo is incorrect, find reliable source to the contrary. It should be fairly easy. Find a source that shows that "something is physically wrong with that part of the brain," from the "findings."

We could take Sobo's comment as a straw man argument, it wouldn't be the first time I've seen one, even in peer-reviewed articles. However, people, in my sense of it, do look at those images and say, "Oh, that part of the brain isn't functioning properly." But, as has been noted, the images simply show lack of activity in those regions, which might show that attention is directed elsewhere. These are ADHD patients, after all. So that ADHD patients would show differences in brain imaging could simply mean that they are thinking differently. Do the studies contradict this?

In any case, at this particular point I'm not insisting on Sobo's work being used as a reference, but I'll stand pretty strongly on the external link to his article. It may be properly framed, but actually have seen no evidence that Sobo is outside the mainstream. He is, from within the mainstream, commenting on aspects of practice, as a practitioner, noting the relationship between research and practice, and that a somewhat mechanistic (or chemical) approach to understanding how the brain functions may be resulting in overreliance on medication to treat the "chemical imbalance," when the chemical imbalance may itself be a symptom of something else, such as unrecognized and unaddressed stressors being maintained by the patient's environment, relationships, work, and memory and response to past trauma.

The human brain is phenomenally complex. I'd say we are only beginning to scratch the surface of what could be known about it. Nothing that I've seen from Sobo is as non-mainstream as editor Scuro appears to think. In any case, this is irrelevant. The question of Sobo's qualifications and the use of his self-published paper must be considered in the context of an actual reference from actual text in the article. Text that was just taken out, referenced to the paper, was in a poor context, so that section required work in any case.

As I mentioned before, the article was in very poor shape, the product of at least two camps of editors putting in POV material with poor sourcing. I see what is happening now as being a reduction of the article to what is *solidly* sourced, pruning back some poorly-written and poorly-sourced material. Then, if more material is needed to fill in gaps, we can see where material from Sobo might fit. That the paper is self-published is indeed problematic, but my point has been that this, alone, is not sufficient to automatically exclude its use, as Scuro has pretended. [claimed]. We'll debate it when the time comes. Meanwhile, I went to the library to see if I could find the Skeptical Inquirer article that is so confidently used to reject all controversy, and which, by placement, seemed to refer to Sobo's paper as well. Which I find highly unlikely -- but if I'm wrong, it would help establish the notability of that paper! (I've seen some pretty poor science in the Skeptical Inquirer, on occasion, by the way, but also some really excellent articles on others.) Unfortunately, the library was closed. Another day.

When the article is reduced to a point that there are no weak sections, then the topic of controversy can be expanded, considering one edit at a time. Right now, the article is in such flux that I'm pretty reluctant to seriously work on it. It's like trying to build a house when the design is constantly being changed, you nail one thing down (maybe do some hours of research) and a few days later, it's torn up and torn out. There are some good editors working on it now, and I'm hoping it will stabilize. On the other hand, I just looked at the intro and checked some sources ... not good. --Abd (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Abd, you speak with a degree of authority about ADHD, yet really you are simply making a lot of assumptions and speculations, none of which are sourced. As in the past, several assumptions are off base and I disagree with enough of what you stated, to put into question in my mind, the main points you are trying to put across. It would be best to stick to the content of the article instead of trying to change people's minds about the issue. Speaking of content...again, I do not like how you attached the word "pretend" to my name. You can simply let your ideas stand on their own merits instead of trying to constantly debase other editors who disagree with you with a constant barge of Ad hominem attacks. Before you write my name down again in a post, consider if you can state the same thing without making reference to me. It would be MUCH appreciated.

Sobo while making good observations and having a praiseworthy concern for the well being of the general public, really is simply a psychiatrist. He doesn't want to be declared an expert and shouldn't be considered at all as a source except specifically to the issues of the practice of psychiatry in general in the article. How anyone could continue to argue that he is an expert on PET scans is beyond me.--scuro (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)User:Scuro wrote: Abd, you speak with a degree of authority about ADHD... Thank you.

yet really you are simply making a lot of assumptions and speculations, none of which are sourced. This statement incorporates some assumptions itself. I'm a primary source on this topic, as is anyone who has ADHD, or who is in frequent contact with those with ADHD. So what I write might be as solidly grounded in experience -- or even more solidly grounded, in some cases -- than what is peer-reviewed. However, it has not been peer-reviewed, and we don't use primary sources in articles except for certain narrow purposes. But in Talk, we may explore the topic of the article, for the purposes of improving it, including reporting relevant primary sources; yes, this would be, perhaps, original research, but as is being discussed at this very time, much of Wikipedia depends on original research, at least for a time; consider *everything* that summarizes sources instead of simply quoting them. Summarization is original research -- unless the summary itself is found directly, or in clearly and undebatably synonymous form, in a responsibly published secondary or tertiary source. Secondary sources that are not peer-reviewed may sometimes be reported here as the opinions of the author of that source, where the author is notable or can be established as expert. As to matters of the state of the science involving ADHD, Dr. Sobo is a secondary source. He is reporting his impression of the balance of evidence on the topic.

Some editors complain bitterly about other editors who comment on their behavior, even when that comment is only about how behavior is impacting the article, but have themselves continually commented on other editors, going beyond what is necessary as part of the editorial process. Note that any kind of comment like I just made is "original research," in this case on the topic of the behavior of some class of editors. Very, very much of Talk is original research. But I can't put anything in the article based on my original research. What *can* go in the article, however, may be based on what I might call an "original consensus," that is, research on the part of the editors into the qualifications of a source. Judgment of sources is quite frequently original research. The key is consensus. Can a fact stated in the article be verified by any reader?; this is the policy, and attempts have been made to pin it down so that there will be less debate about what verification means, various forms of verification have been identified as adequate, but, in my opinion, this will never be adequate, and many of the early Wikipedians recognized this and write of Instruction creep, where an attempt is made to substitute ever-more detailed rules for the intelligent and informed consensus of the editors. This is why there are guidelines and why they are not called rules. These represent a distilled body of precedent, generally agreed as being what the community is likely decide if it is forced to make a decision. But the guidelines and even policies aren't binding. As they increase in solidity and clarity, they increasingly predict how the community, or those acting on behalf of the community, will respond to a conflict.

So the editor continued, It would be best to stick to the content of the article instead of trying to change people's minds about the issue. There is an incorporated assumption here, which is what I'm supposedly "trying" to do. I'm discussing the article and the issues involved. Part of this may involve confronting, with counterexample, some assumptions and ideas that seem to be to be in the minds of other editors. That's not an attack on them, and, what I find happens when I'm clearly wrong about my identification of those assumptions, the person simply says, "No, that's not what I think." It's when it's not so clear that it can get hot. In any case, I'm not a mind-reader; on the other hand, I have very extensive experience, thousands of hours, listening to people talk in close and confidential environments, and I'm a person myself, so, indeed, I may correctly infer what people are thinking from how they express themselves. On-line communication, though, is very narrow-bandwidth; and so misunderstandings can easily arise and multiply.

The editor went on to say, Speaking of content...again, I do not like how you attached the word "pretend" to my name. Before saying anything else, I should apologize for that; however, here is what I wrote: That the paper is self-published is indeed problematic, but my point has been that this, alone, is not sufficient to automatically exclude its use, as Scuro has pretended. Pretended was a poor choice of words, implying that Scuro is aware that his claim is incorrect and nevertheless asserts it. I cannot know what Scuro knows, he may well believe that he is correct -- and, I would assert, has therefore not read the guidelines and policies carefully, for they are explicitly open to exception. In any case, that comment reflected some failure to assume good faith, because indeed, I have come to have some doubt about being able to maintain that assumption (which, as is common, is reflected in Scuro's writing, see the section head he placed here: for the time being I no longer assume good faith on the part of Abd.)

And then, You can simply let your ideas stand on their own merits instead of trying to constantly debase other editors who disagree with you with a constant barge of Ad hominem attacks. Before you write my name down again in a post, consider if you can state the same thing without making reference to me. It would be MUCH appreciated.

If I suggest that this editor is a single-purpose account, as can be seen from a review of Special:Contributions/Scuro, if I note that the editor has (knowingly or otherwise) misrepresented guidelines and policies and has violated policy in a manner that can sometimes result in a block, it appears that this is taken, by him, as an action to "debase," and that it, and the like, are "ad hominem attacks."[sic]. (He's concerned about personal attacks, it would be an ad hominem argument if I claimed that an argument he has advanced is wrong because he is the one advancing it; an example of this would be an argument that criticism of ADHD is wrong because it is promoted by Scientologists.)

Looking at this editor's earliest contributions, I see, on December 11, 2006, five days after registration of the account, a series of edits made to this Controversies article, showing a very familiar theme. He removed a link to Peter Breggin with the edit summary, See also - removed link to Breggin who is obviously biased and on the respected website, Quack watch. Breggin does not believe that ADHD is a real disorder very much like Scientology.[31]

Whatever we may think of Peter Breggin, he's a notable critic of the mainstream positions on ADHD, and reference and linkage to him certainly belongs in this article. It's a pretty thin controversy if nobody is "biased!" (Conversely, you can make controversy vanish by simply defining anyone who disagrees with you as "biased.") Yes, in my opinion, Breggin is biased, and his statements cannot be taken as fact except about himself, but his arguments are, by virtue of having become notable, relevant here and his web site is a primary source for them (and we can link to primary sources in a situation like this.)

However, my comments about Scuro's behavior are not "personal attacks." If I note that this editor has heavily edited this family of related articles, and, in particular, this one, for its history since he registered, and practically nothing else, it's not an attack, it's a fact. If I mention that he appears to not use Preview to settle his edits before posting them, because his edits are often a series of retouches, that, again, would not be an attack, it would be an observation. He wouldn't be the only one to do it, but we might hope he learns to use preview. (And I often think there is no reason to preview, hit Save Page, and then, oops! -- but then the additional edits are usually minor formatting problems, and are marked as minor (some people don't even see minor edits). What this would be is comment on editor behavior as it affects the article and other editors. It is quite proper to discuss this.

Now, as to the point: Sobo while making good observations and having a praiseworthy concern for the well being of the general public, really is simply a psychiatrist. Fine. Try to put that in the article. Suppose Sobo is cited in some published source. (I think he is somewhere.) Do you think that you could put in the article that he is "simply a psychiatrist"? To my mind, being a psychiatrist means being an expert (that is, sufficiently expert to be given credentials to prescribe controlled substances, to represent himself to the public as qualified to diagnose and treat, among other things, ADHD.) That would presumably put him head and shoulders above an anonymous editor. He is far more qualified, formally, on our subject than, say, Peter Breggin, who was "only" a neurologist, and did not specialize in behavioral neurology (which is more or less what a psychiatrist deals with). I put "only" in quotes, because Breggin was not merely a neurologist, he was a published neurologist, thus of some extended repute (as is Sobo); but the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD would not have been within his professional expertise (as a specialist; except, of course, that he might diagnose physical disorders which could present similar symptoms, sometimes.)

There is a great concern being expressed where editors gather to discuss policy and guidelines, that there is a class of editors who seem to take it as their primary occupation to go about and remove material that is not properly sourced. However, the best article writers often don't source what they write. Sourcing takes a lot of time, compared to writing, if one is familiar with the subject. Wikipedia requires sourcing eventually, but the process that built this project did not obsess on sources during the creation of articles. Lots of articles are created with no references at all; someone knows a subject, notices that an article is missing, and simply writes it. Obviously, this article needs improvement, but it is not "improvement," generally, to simply delete the unsourced material. Rather, a constructive editor will research the claims in the article and supply references -- or correct, or remove what is not supported by reliable sources. If there are POV claims in the article that reflect POV opinion in the world, the cleanup editor will add balancing claims, sourcing or attributing it all, such that any reader may verify what is in the article. But a POV editor, on the other hand, will attempt to remove whatever impeaches his or her POV, and keep what supports it. It's my belief that POV editors are crucial to the maturity of articles where there is controversy, for they will be sensitive to the nuances of how facts are presented, but only when they do not disruptively dominate articles, driving away those who actually have knowledge of the subject -- and who are therefore in a commonly better position to sift through the conflicting evidences that can be found -- because these have no time for edit wars, nor inclination to argue indefinitely with the ignorant.

We will return to the question of the use of material from Sobo. I made a remarkable discovery at the library today, which I will report separately. --Abd (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia".

Abd, that post was over 12000 characters long. and much of that strayed from commenting on content.

Hey are there any editors who believe that this is wrong? Can we build a consensus that a 12000 post, much of it based on judgments about other editors and editing behaviour is counter productive? Please share your thoughts. --scuro (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(inserted)While the post above is short, it is entirely straying from commenting on content and focuses entirely on editor behavior. I have asked for examples of alleged personal attacks, and have seen nothing (the two examples given were absolutely not attacks), yet there are now piles of edits from this person that are quite clearly personal attack. Do they rise to the level of being actionable? Maybe. But it a colossal pain, as this editor knows, since I see his edits contemplating pursuing it with me and attempting to line up support. As to length, I spent quite a few hours today putting together research; sure, it's possible it could be condensed. It could take a day. I don't really have the time to do what I'm already doing, adding the time to condense is simply impossible. And what I found today is quite significant. It's below. It's bout the article and the sources and the edit history, and it, unfortunately, does reveal some about what has been going on here, wasting the time of many, many editors. --Abd (talk

I do feel like long posts are difficult to read. I usually write obscenely long posts and then try to pare them down to just the main points and bullet or number them. I am not going to take a side as to editing behavior because I had a hard enough time trying to make it through the post once without getting distracted. (that was supposed to be a joke, so laugh .... nevermind) Anyways, it's a good idea to assume good faith when reading critical posts to avoid getting angry when the other person didn't mean for it to come across that way. :) Sifaka ^talk 01:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It is my habit to explore the process issues, how articles can mature and the editors find consensus, and, along the way, it's sometimes necessary to explore editor behavior. I've never tried to get anyone blocked, but, definitely, a number have tried to get me blocked; they are no longer around or are, effectively, on a short leash, having been blocked or warned. However, what I've said a number of times is that if a user hasn't been blocked, they aren't trying hard enough to clean up and build the project. (But people differ, and some manage to do a great deal of highly effective editing without running into problems; on the other hand these people habitually stay away from controversial articles! Some of the best administrators have been blocked on occasion. And I do believe in WP:AGF and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. But I will also call an single-purpose account a single purpose account, a sock puppet a sock puppet, and will warn editors who WP:BITE the newcomer about the incivility of that. The last of these, indeed, is what started this. --Abd (talk

While the post above is short, it is entirely straying from commenting on content and focuses entirely on editor behavior. - okay have someone write a 12000 plus diatribe with many personal references to you and try to stay focused on content. Why must I constantly read about myself in talk when talk is about content?

I have asked for examples of alleged personal attacks- sorry I missed that but 12000 plus characters a day does that to you. They are not obvious personal attacks but personal observations, framing of associations, the creation of bias in the reader's mind by connecting negative feedback to the editor. The editor builds up a strawman. If they were obvious attacks I would have reported it long ago. What posts all recently have been, are clear examples of, Commenting on a contributor and not on the content. As of this moment I would focus strictly on content if others would do likewise. I have implored for this be done for a month and seen no change whatsoever. It is beyond me why basic wiki policy is not being followed.--scuro (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Crikey!! Hey guys, let's just stop with the personal comments and considerations and all play nicely - we've all had problems with each other because this is an emotive topic, but it's important. Abd - a number of editors have had problems with your personal comments but lets forget that now and all assume good faith; I think it's there. You are an important contributor to this article so please don't go and lets all just stay on topic, all of us. Scuro and others - you do resist mention of any viewpoint questioning ADHD as a medical condition, but Scuro your objections are not without foundation, except when dealing with Clockback who deals only in logic (Continually repeating a line from an advert he's never seen will just annoy him) but as he seems to have gone now I don't see that as a problem. So please, lets just forget this and make progress. Miamomimi (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a 100% with you Mia...it felt good to make an edit today and not have to deal with other stuff. As a sign of good faith, I think where the controversy is most in people's minds is with medication. That's why I moved that section to the start of the article. I may be more reasonable then you think about Breggin ....even Baughman...who knows...even Sobo. Cooperation, good faith, and a clear focus on content is the key.--scuro (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Scuro - yes, I'm with you on the medication point and have some research on that I'd like to put forward. I do hope you agree with my point about considering the reader - I strongly feel we have to consider the poor stressed out parent who may not have a college degree and is looking this up. My feeling is that in the intro it should be simple words introducing the issues which are then presented in detail in the article. I'm backing up my simple points with citations but trying to paraphrase in such a way as to not frighten people from reading the rest of the article. Anyway, perhaps any discussion could be had in a seperate section? See what you think of my latest.. Miamomimi (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about the confusing the reader with complex text and so does Wikipedia. Wordy words should be avoided. The intro should summarize the article. We have done it a bit backwards by doing the intro first...but whatever works. Paraphrasing is not frowned upon in the intro if points paraphrased are flushed out in the article with citations. Sometimes this very difficult to do in the body of a text if it is a technical matter such as possible genes involved with ADHD. I did look at the most recent intro. I had made one earlier in the day. I would say there is undue weight. First you have to describe the majority viewpoint of what ADHD is.--scuro (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I thought you might have that view but Safika has reverted mine to Clockback's and I didn't see Clockbacks for some reason when I made my edit and it's fine by me, please see my comments further down. Miamomimi (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Labeling section unbalanced

The section on "labeling" is unbalanced POV-wise and it is not indicated as being controversial because of its aggressive tone that assumes that the label "Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" is actively harmful and is preventing children from succeeding, rather than reflecting that there is widespread concern the label could potentially be harmful to children's self esteem. It is written in an un-encyclopedic, florid tone and style which reads more like an argument or a section of a book rather than a balanced treatment of the subject. Sifaka ^talk 22:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I regret describing the section as I did in the first sentence, so I struck out the old predicate and rewrote it to better describe my opinion.

Introduction

User:Scuro, you reverted my changes to the introduction. I had restructured it because it currently and at the time leads with an argument that supports one side, not a neutral statement of the subject of this article. The article is about Controversies associated with ADHD. Can we simply state the objective fact that there are controversies associated with ADHD, and follow this with "despite a scientific consensus that ADHD is a disorder?" etc.? In my view, opening the article the way you have reverted it puts the cart before the horse, essentially stating (to paraphrase): "Even though ADHD is a real thing, there are controversies about it." That is assuming the truth of your argument before arguing your position. If ADHD is actually a real thing, and if there is a scientific consensus that reflects this (and I say "if" because I am making a general argument about logical structure, not because I am advocating a position on ADHD), then it should be simple to state "there are controversies," BUT "a huge scientific consensus rebuts them." Can you please explain why you like it better your way? Thanks, Kaisershatner (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, in the current state it isn't bad. Will make some changes, mostly syntax/grammar.Kaisershatner (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The new intro is not an improvement. In a controversy article the intro should read as if the controversy and the issue was new to the reader. According to undue weight it should lead with the current view of what ADHD is and then follow with the controversy. The new citations also given by no means allow for the new statements made. I'm waiting for a less hostile environment, where editors don't judge me personally with every post, before I wade into the pool again. Let it be known there is no consensus.--scuro (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, User:Scuro. Mattisse 04:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the 1st para I changed is a lot better than what was there before but I see your point about it Scuro and will re-write tonight after some thought. Regards, Miamomimi (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...be careful not to extrapolate too much from the citations. ie using one citation to make a claim about a whole country.--scuro (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I also feel the line as it currently is appears to unfairly characterize the countries in question as more skeptical by singling them out. With news articles like these is it hard to tell if GB and Aus see ADHD as more controversial than the US does. I am going to change it, so tell me what you think. The last source of the sentence is someone's rather opinionated opinion article and even though it's written by a biochemist, I am strongly skeptical of some of the claims being made (without evidence to back it up), and it's not a reputable source. I am going to remove it because the purpose it seems to serve is as an example of discontent. Anyways, the other two sources will be fine to cover the statement, so it's extra anyway.Sifaka ^talk 02:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Good grief Safika, you have got to be kidding me! You think that an improvement? About 4 words into the article would scare off any poor parent who's not a... sophomore? We are writing to inform Joe Public not to win prizes for the most academic sounding jargon we can stuff into Wikipedia. I'm sorry folks I lost my connection last night and now have the demands of family to attend to - I'll re-write ASAP. Miamomimi (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: Would you like me to stuff a number of citations in to PROVE the position of the UK. I'm in it, have children and it's not as big as Texas, in fact I can drive there and back to most parts in a day. The political status of the UK is different to the US - central government has a huge impact on our NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE. That means that what goes through the Commons and agreed by the Lords GOES!! And ALL doctors in the UK, have to abide by their decision. We don't have federal law and state law we have the law and thats it. Unless you're in Scotland but that's not important right now. The main point is that Britain is pretty small and has a national health service and education policy that covers the country. With education and the national curriculum what a child learns on one day in one county is exactly the same as what another child learns in the same day in another county. We are a small nation but pretty feisty. If you need me to swamp the site with citations I can do that. In fact I can easily do that..... Miamomimi (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am confused by the point you were trying to make. (not that its relevant anymore since the intro has been changed) The change I made earlier was this. All I did was replace the sentence, In some countries, notably the United Kingdom and Australia, there is a groundswell of discontent as to its treatment and even its existence with the single word "worldwide" and removed one of the sources. I don't think the word "worldwide" counts as jargon. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. Sifaka ^talk 02:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a misunderstanding Sifaka, hastened by my login keep disappearing then my connection keep disappearing half way through an edit (I've learnt to write edits in Word) Please put my misunderstanding down to a chemical imbablance brought on by a vicious attack from the black Pingoat of the woods with a thousand young. Miamomimi (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-write of intro

There is some discussion as to including refs in the intro so I've put them in so you can view them and respond if you wish. I intend this as a first draft as there is more work/citations to follow. Miamomimi (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

POV distortion of source in old edit, still in article.

For some time, one of the frequent editors of this article, has been asking editors critical of ADHD to supply reliable source on the controversy. Because some of these editors were indeed inserting critical or even fringe material without sources, I also challenged them to do so; however, my challenge was intended to inspire them to find such sources, and to edit accordingly. I had assumed the same of this editor, that his position was "I don't think there is any notable criticism or controversy, so I'll keep it out of the articles until someone provides reliable source." I now must revise this opinion.

March 13, 2007, this editor inserted extraordinarily strong text into this article,[32] and it was referenced to to a peer-reviewed publication, Skeptical Inquirer, an article by Alan D. Bowd. The relevant magazine isn't directly available on-line, and I'm going to guess that nobody checked it. Today I went to the library and was able to get access to an on-line reference collection with the article. This is what was inserted by that edit; I have bolded the strong text and the reference:

(new section head: Skepticism towards diagnosis)

The number of people diagnosed with ADHD in the U.S. and UK grew dramatically in the 90's. Critics of the diagnosis, such as Dan P. Hallahan and James M. Kauffman in their book Exceptional Learners: Introduction to Special Education, have argued that this increase is due to the ADHD diagnostic criteria being sufficiently general or vague to allow virtually anybody with persistent unwanted behaviors to be classified as having ADHD of one type or another, and that the symptoms are not supported by sufficient empirical data.

Publications that are designed to analyze a person's behavior, such as the Brown Scale or the Conners Scale, for example, attempt to assist parents and providers in making a diagnosis by evaluating an individual on typical behaviors such as "Hums or makes other odd noises", "Daydreams" and "Acts 'smart'"; the scales rating the pervasiveness of these behaviors range from "never" to "very often". Conners states that, based on the scale, a valid diagnosis can be achieved; critics, however, counter Conners' proposition by pointing out the breadth with which these behaviors may be interpreted. This becomes especially relevant when family and cultural norms are taken into consideration; this premise leads to the assumption that a diagnosis based on such a scale may actually be more subjective than objective (see cultural subjectivism). However, DSM IV-TR Diagnostic criteria does take into account behaviors related to cultural and social norms.

A study by Adam Rafalovich has found that many doctors are no more confident in the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD than are many parents. Another source of skepticism is that most people with ADHD have no difficulties concentrating when they are doing something that interests them, whether it is educational or entertainment. However, these objections have been rejected by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Surgeon General. Moreover the fact that comorbidity is common, somewhere between 60 and 80% of children diagnosed with ADHD have a second diagnosis, indicates that the nuances of diagnosis have not been adequately described. Simple uncomplicated ADHD may well turn out to be different from ADHD with comorbid conduct disorder, and different again from ADHD with comorbid Tourette's or Asperger's syndrome to name but two of the conditions that commonly occur in conjunction with ADHD.

The substance of what is in this edit (the part of concern here) is a report of two "arguments" (they aren't really arguments, but verifiable facts that someone might use in an argument) that are "refuted" by a long list of reputable organizations.

The second of these "refuted" arguments is sourced to nothing other than dear Dr. Sobo, referenced to the very self-published article that was the subject of so much flap recently, raised, again, by the same editor. It appears that this was put in simply to refute it with the full authority of all those august organizations. It was later removed, quite recently, by the same editor,[33] then put in again by User:Sifaka a few days ago (Feb 3, 2008).[34]. (Sifaka is apparently recovering text from old revisions. Yeah that's right. I did recover the text from an old version Sifaka ^talk 02:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Indeed, when I've been looking over old revisions of this article, it was in a number of ways a better article, not in detail and freedom from POV positions, but in interest.)

I was skeptical that Sobo's argument would be "refuted" by them, since it's not an argument, it is a piece of evidence (well known to anyone with experience with ADHD, see Hyperfocus), but perhaps the author of the Skeptical Inquirer article really did say all this, summarizing conclusions from the organizations.

He didn't. The article is about quack cures for ADHD: The full title is: 'Curing' ADHD: a Web search for "Curing ADHD" resulted in 33,000 hits. This is a curious result, considering the unanimous view of scientists that there is currently no cure for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The author is Alan D. Bowd, Ph.D. Regional Director for the Centre of Excellence for Children and Adolescents with Special Needs at Lakehead University (Thunder Bay, Canada). And I did finally find an on-line site with the text: [35].

On point here is this statement early in the article:

However, the diagnosis and treatment--even the existence--of ADHD are subjects of very real controversy. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) found it necessary to release a consensus statement confirming the scientific validity of the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD, including "the literal existence of the disorder" (NIH 2000). Critics have argued that ADHD should not be regarded as a distinct diagnostic entity, because its symptoms are ill-defined, unreliably differentiated from those of other conduct disorders, and not supported by sufficient empirical data (Hallahan and Kauffman 2003). While it is true that the identification of individuals with ADHD includes a substantial element of subjectivity, each objection has been dismissed, not only by the APA but also by the U.S. Surgeon General, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (International Consensus Statement on ADHD 2002). Many of the critics have come from educational backgrounds where there is ongoing concern about misidentification and inappropriate prescription of medication for students who may be difficult to manage in school, but who do nor have a mental disorder.

What was "each objection"? It was the arguments underlying a claim that ADHD should not be regarded as a single diagnostic entity, specifically, that the symptoms were ill-defined, that it is unreliably differentiated from those of other conduct disorders, and that the [categorization of these together as a single disorder] is not supported by sufficient empirical data. Sufficient for what? Sufficient for it to be used as a diagnostic entity, with practical benefit, of course. Does this negate the *facts* reported by Sobo and Rafalovich? Of course not! I'm not familiar with the Rafalovich source, but it does not refer, as mentioned in the article, to some sort of claim that ADHD is insufficiently defined, but rather to the confidence of doctors in diagnosing it. This could be, for example, a result of inadequate education. The article acknowledges a "substantial element of subjectivity" in the diagnosis, so the question with Rafalovich would be how confident physicians are in applying the diagnostic criteria, not whether the criteria are not, in themselves and to experts, adequately defined. Rafalovich, I assume, isn't denying the reality of ADHD, nor is Sobo. Sobo, in particular, seems quite comfortable diagnosing ADHD, which is a constellation of symptoms.

There is no support in the referenced source for the specific claim of argument rejection made in the article, and the only reason, I suggest, that this lasted this long in the article is that few editors would go to the trouble of actually finding and reading the article. Further, the editor who added this citation, if he read the article, must have been aware of the recognition by the author of "very real controversy," over the "diagnosis and treatment of ADHD." Absolutely, the article also identifies a kind of source of the criticism, noting that, "Many of the critics have come from educational backgrounds where there is ongoing concern about misidentification and inappropriate prescription of medication for students who may be difficult to manage in school, but who do not have a mental disorder." This is the "social critic" epithet which has been used in the article, more generalized (because the described group may include some experts who are not merely social critics): the "many." This implies that there are others. (It could mean that the author was unwilling to commit to a straight, unweaseled general categorization, given the depth of research that would be necessary, and thus weakened it -- as I do sometimes when I think something is generally true but might not be absolutely true -- or it could mean that the author was aware of some exceptions.) [edit cut off from sig by new section title and editor response below.]--Abd (talk

Thank you Abd for not directly rebuking me by name. It's one step in the right direction and it is appreciated. Still it could be argued that once again the focus is on me. Baby steps I guess.... It's 20,000 character addition this time. You lost me after the first few sentences with this breathless report, "March 13, 2007, this editor inserted extraordinarily strong text into this article, [36] and it was referenced to to a peer-reviewed publication, Skeptical Inquirer, an article by Alan D. Bowd". If you look at the edit I was simply moving text around and organizing the article. The article was a disorganized collection of stray thoughts. The reference isn't mine, I see no extraordinarily strong text inserted. This makes little sense.

After that confusion it was hard to connect any ideas to what you wrote. If you have an "extraordinary" accusation, make a formal complaint. If you would like me to respond to an idea keep it simple....20K's of characters...for heaven's sake. Do not waste everyone's time in talk with huge screeds. I disagree often with what you post but don't respond because I believe your personal observations are a form of flaming. Make a complaint and I'll go that extra mile for you. Abd, I would follow Miamomimi's advice to drop it and play nice. This post is just another form of public rebuke, and a form of harassment or flaming. --scuro (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(comment inserted here, posted later than what is below). 20,000 characters certainly sounds like a lot! However, posting the character count, repeatedly, for an editor's edits, is certainly "commenting on the editor rather than the content" of the article, and calling it a "screed," a "breathless report," "flaming," and all that, imputes emotional states to the editor, so it is odd to see this from one who is claiming that we should never do that kind of thing. I just noticed that this user has requested advice regarding how to proceed regarding my behavior, at case of a another editor constantly focusing on me as a contributor in talk a case of a another editor constantly focusing on me as a contributor in talk; this could be useful. One or the other of us, or both, may learn something, though many users never do, and it also might waste a lot of time. As to the 20,000 characters, though, what is above and what Scuro herewith replied to is only a little more than half that, for he cut into the middle of my post, which had created a new subsection, and that subsection had nothing that, as far as I could see, could even remotely be considered to fit his description of a crazed editor, obsessed with him, foaming at the mouth, so to speak. (I later made it a full section, which simply makes it easier to edit -- both this one and that one.) --Abd (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment inserted here,, poste later than what is below) Abd....Abd...I'm not biting on the bait offered. It would be great if we could let this go. I'm ready to move on and have stated so several times now. I don't want to focus on the past and want to work together in good faith. Again, I offer that opportunity to you and wait for your aquiensence. No editor wants to see this go on...but what is one to do if someone can't let it go? The mediation cabal is my answer, hence the request of advice from the mediation cabal. It can stop now, and I'll lead the way. I will focus only on content if you do the same. My commitment starts now, does yours? --scuro (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As to the insertion of the citation, see the diff reported above:[[37]]. This edit introduced text and claim to the article, shown above. The extraordinarily strong text was bolded in my quotation. It is a sweeping claim: However, these objections have been rejected by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Surgeon General. A short list of asserted facts (properly sourced or otherwise) preceded this, yet the source did not show "rejection" of these alleged facts, and those facts, in themselves, were not necessarily "objections." This edit tarred, with a brush dipped in the asphalt of broad official rejection, two specific sources as fringe, when, in fact, the source, the Skeptical Inquirer article, showed no such thing; and I quoted the actual text above for convenience. Yes, it takes time to read what I wrote, but imagine how much time went into compiling it. And how much editor time has been wasted in a phony dispute over whether or not "controversy over ADHD" is sufficiently notable to warrant attention in the main article or this subarticle? Anyone who looked at the source would know that the controversy is quite notable. So, then, did the editor inserting (or allegedly copying) sourced text check the source? If not, that is itself reprehensible, though it's an error that is commonly made. Editors here are amateurs, typically, which can excuse a great deal.

Now, is this correct: If you look at the edit I was simply moving text around and organizing the article. The article was a disorganized collection of stray thoughts. The reference isn't mine, I see no extraordinarily strong text inserted. This makes little sense. Again, look at the edit, as suggested: [[38]]. Principle in common law (and often encoded into statutes): Testimony is assumed true unless controverted. Wikipedia calls this Assume Good Faith. So, following this, the editor, even though literally inserting the text with that edit, as I noted above, had perhaps deleted it from another section in a separate edit and then copied it in here. Did this happen? No. This text did not exist in this article until this editor inserted it. However, there remains another possibility. Suppose the editor commenting above did not, in fact, originate the text, but copied it from the main article. And, in fact, I find the text in the main article as of the date of the insertion here. (Previously, I only looked here, and that is what I reported above.)

Technically, in inserting text into an article, an editor is taking responsibility for its accuracy and faithfulness to source. True source must be cited. So if, for example, an author quotes another source, the author should not cite the primary source, but rather the secondary one, or, sometimes, the primary source "as found in" and then the secondary source. Using a Wikipedia article as a source is not allowed, and for obvious reasons. Lesson: if taking text from another article, check the sources and verify that they are accurately represented. However, sometimes for convenience, particularly when creating subarticles, we do copy text; however, this should be noted in Talk so that other editors may review it. That was not done, and, in fact, there was almost no Talk going on at that point, but much editing.

Now, where did this text come from? Here it is, with context,inserted, 23 June 2006, by user:Nightscream:[39]

Many have wondered why the number of children diagnosed with ADHD in the U.S. and UK has grown so dramatically over a short period of time. However, doctors often claim that improving methods of diagnosis and greater awareness are probably in part, if not mostly the reason for this increase. Critics, such as Dan P. Hallahan and James M, Kauffman, in their book, Exceptional Learners: Introduction to Special Education, have complained that the ADHD diagnostic criteria are sufficiently general or vague to allow virtually any child with persistent unwanted behaviors to be classified as having ADHD of one type or another, and that the symptoms are not supported by sufficient empirical data. One critic, Simon Sobo, M.D. points out that most children with ADHD have no difficulties concentrating when they are doing activities that are fun, such as playing video games which they can do for hours completely focused. This critic argues that the symptoms of ADHD describe children when they are bored and unconnected to a task. According to the May//June 2006 issue of Skeptical Enquirer magazine, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Surgeon General have dismissed these objections.

This editor attributed the Sobo comment (which was good). However, the source does not show those sources as dismissing Sobo's comment; and it appears that future generations of editors did not check the source. Rather, it is easy to consider that they, having a POV, either accepted the text as confirming their opinion, or as typical of "establishment rejection" of their point of view. However, this editor is not a POV editor; he was, by this time, an experienced Wikipedia editor with over 2000 edits. I have seen no other edits from him in this field; from other edits, it would appear that he read the Skeptical Inquirer article and posted this text as his summary of it, appending it to the previous text as if it applied to that text, thus creating the problem.

Summary: the editor who put this text into this article did not create the inaccurate quotation of source, so in that respect, his defense above is accurate. However, he copied it from Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, thus taking responsibility for its accuracy. Given that he may not have read the source itself -- it wasn't easy to find for me -- this would then be a matter of editor error, and could create no significant appearance of Bad Faith, so I will strike out my comment about difficulty continuing to Assume Good Faith above. He was cleaning up the main article, so he removed it from there.[40] The general removal from the main article, however, was improper. There is notable controversy, and the details may be moved here, but eventually the main article was stripped of nearly all mention of controversy, plus what represents, in some cases, mainstream opinion and evidence, was moved as if it were controversy, and this would include the Sobo material and the paper about physician lack of confidence.

However, many edits in the history of these articles do show poor attention to fidelity to sources, and we all might take a lesson from this. Further, my concern could have been cleared up more quickly if the editor involved had looked carefully at what I found, and, instead of taking it as a personal attack, instead of denying that he had inserted the text (for he did), explained where he had obtained it and, even better, apologized for the error. We are all responsible for what we insert into the article, and when we do not take care with respect to it, we damage Wikipedia. In this case, an incorrect claim remained active for a good part of two years; and it's possible that thousands of contentious edits might have been avoided, if someone had checked the claim by reviewing the article and incorporating relevant material from it, properly sourced. A thousand Wikipedia edits, what's that worth? Some people make edits furiously and quickly (and incautiously). Others worry over them in detail and research everything. Just off the top of my head, an average edit might be fifteen minutes (many shorter than that, but a few much longer than that, I sometimes spend a day on an edit). This could be 250 hours of editor time wasted over a non-issue. Controversy over ADHD is notable, and that is shown by reliable source, and it should have remained in the main article (or the equivalent), the Skeptical Inquirer article is a good source for that.

One more comment. It took quite a bit of work to disentangle what had happened. One of the causes of this is that there were many edits which massively reworked large chunks of the main article. Massive edits are almost never a good idea. They are hard to review, and they will tend to be either reverted in toto, or neglected and nobody checks the sources. Both are not good outcomes. Everyone makes mistakes, and we should all check each other. In creating a subarticle, there is a temptation to simply copy text from the main article. If that is to be done, it should probably be done one section at a time. A crucial part of the Wikipedia process is review and checking, and, with a massive edit, it is as if one of my tomes were plonked down on an article page. And had to be checked, all at once. Consider the problem, suppose most of it looked good. An editor reverting it would have a problem with removing sourced material. But checking it could be spotty, because there would be so much checking to do at once. Ultimately, Wikipedia should have a process whereby users sign off on having checked sources for a page. Indeed, it's occurred to me, a simple and useful way of doing this, which I will implement for these articles, I hope. I also saw, along the way, an removing material about the controversy, marked as minor. Not good.

--Abd (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So after much sleuthing, we have an approximate total 8000 word analysis that lets us know:

• Abd requested editing of the article but he feels that the edits made were "massive" edits.
• That in reorganizing the two articles and moving text between the two articles, Abd incorrectly assumed that the moved text was an "extraordinarily strong text" creation of mine. He recognizes this false assumption and lets us know his mistake.
• That I did a very poor job of summarizing my edit in this particular example.
• That there are a number of lessons to be learned, mainly that we need to be more thorough.

I will be more thorough in the future and make better edit summaries.--scuro (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Well that's all correct, as far as I know, except the first comment and some nuances. One might note that the comment about massive edits did not identify User:Scuro. I've seen this problem many times with many articles. Instead of editing a section at a time, a user will go through an article and make a slew of changes. Whole-article edits should probably be restricted to moving text around, and the summary should say that all that is being done is moving text. Of course, if one wants to make a subtle POV change to an article, the chances of getting away with it would be increased by making lots of harmless (or better, beneficial) edits to other parts of the article. Wanting to be transparent would be a reason to avoid such massive edits.

The edits I actually saw and had in mind were edits made before I became involved with this article, so this had nothing to do with response to my suggestions that the article was poor.

The text was indeed making an extraordinary claim, and not supported by the source. The source supports something in the way of an official answer to certain kinds of objections, but its placement in the article made it look like specific asserted facts were being "rejected," which was not at all the case. I think as I reviewed the history of this, the facts supposedly rejected by all the organizations shifted. That alone should have been a clue. What, exactly, did they reject? I still don't know, really, the Skeptical Inquirer article is a very general statement, the judgement of the author, and not easy to check, itself. Really, in this case, the Skeptical Inquirer article is a tertiary sources, with the official rejections being secondary sources (they are a result of an official consideration of the literature and the judgement of a review board, if I'm correct), and, in any case, directly reportable if someone follows up on the SI footnotes.

I looked at the history of this article and saw that Scuro had inserted the text. On the face of it, this made him responsible for it. Scuro's response that he had not originated it, but had merely moved it around, could have led to further dispute, getting uglier, since the record plainly showed that he had introduced it. If instead of denying what I had found -- which was proven with the diff, which clearly showed the text being inserted, and the text had not existed before in this article, and there was no mention of moving it from elsewhere -- he had done what I ultimately did, which was to assume that the other editor was not lying or being vicious, but merely mistaken (or not being understood because of some unstated assumption), I then tried to figure out what could have actually happened. Now, to verify the suspicion that arose actually took far more time than would have been necessary if not for the massive edits; and all of it would have been unnecessary if the edit putting the text in this article had simply noted what was being done.

Notice the list of sections on this page. In two of them, Scuro claims that he has become unable to assume good faith on my part, and he attempts to show, in numerous places, that I have been personally attacking him. Had he been able to follow WP:AGF, he might have thought, "Maybe he has a point, what could it be?" and this whole matter would have settled far more quickly. I comment on the behavior of other editors when I see that it is negatively impacting the editorial process (or, sometimes, when it is benefiting it, particularly in some unexpected way, i.e., a clear POV editor acknowledges an NPOV edit, or even makes it, balancing out his or her own known POV). I am, quite certainly, not free of problematic behavior, including voluminous comment; however, behind those comments is frequently even more voluminous research into sources and evidence, plus personal experience from a long and active life. So some people (a few) read what I write with appreciation and, indeed, I am writing for them, and I never know who they will be. As to what goes into articles from me, it is subject to the same examination and edits by others as with anyone, and I don't wax pensive there. This, though, is Talk, and while concise comments are recommended (for good reason), there is no requirement for them, and no reader is obligated to read them. When I write something that is a part of official process, where there may, indeed, be an obligation to read and note (such as placing a warning on a user page about blockable behavior), you will find me concise and very careful.

I would say more than "we should be more thorough." We should all reflect on WP:AGF and WP:NPOV and what it means to be a responsible editor. If we consider how Wikipedia works when it is able to develop NPOV articles on controversial subjects, editors with various contrasting points of view are essential for the development of NPOV, which represents a consensus of all editors with various points of view, excluding only those who really are interested in promoting their personal (or collective POV, they may represent a huge "constituency") and prove that by their behavior. These latter editors are excluded informally through rejecting their edits, and, should they act contrary to policy in response, by actually excluding them. Wikipedia process on this is cumbersome, and I don't advise anyone to get involved with it unless the need is great, it can be emotionally exhausting to be raked over the coals and examined with a microscope by hundreds of editors, some with axes to grind. I'm one of those who comment in ArbComm decisions; so far, my comments have been in line with the ultimate decisions and may have played some role in forming them; but all this means is that my comments have reflected how the overall community, at least to some degree, understands the process and the intentions of the guidelines and policies. But I also take issue with quite a bit that is routinely accepted and even some of what has been proclaimed as the consensus of the community. Were it really consensus, and verifiable as such, it would be a different matter. (If I did not agree with it them, I'd be in a tough spot, the easiest way out of which would be to re-examine the basis of my beliefs. I happen to believe that a genuine consensus of an informed community is far more likely to be correct and wise than whatever I could come up with myself.)

Part of the process is personal responsibility for our edits. Material brought from elsewhere should be checked. This is not putting some special blame on one editor, I think much was moved from the main article to this one by a number of editors, and I think that part of this may have been an effort to create a POV fork. I.e., editors who only want to see alleged mainstream opinion in the main article may have moved contrary opinion, even if notable, out of the article to "get rid of it." Which is not proper. Rather, material may be moved to create a subarticle, but it must not be done to create POV imbalance in either article. What changes is relatively notability of opinion, a specific opinion that may be out of place in the main article may become sufficiently notable here. This is why I suggested working on this article before trying to satisfy editors coming from the "critical of ADHD" position. That position is much more notable here, in proportion, since this article only addresses controversy. An open issue is where variation in opinion among mainstream writers, belongs. In the present case, what was really mainstream "fact," not necessarily challenged anywhere, was lumped together with general and strong criticism of the very diagnosis, and if its treatment with drugs, as if it was all the same -- and often implied or stated to be coming from "social critics," which for some is a dismissive comment, and which wasn't true, even as to the overall challenge to the diagnosis. Fair treatment of minority opinion is essential to the balance of the encyclopedia.

To find consensus we must be willing to openly listen to opinion contrary to our own, and to examine evidence that contradicts our beliefs, including our beliefs about ourselves, without immediately assuming that it must be false or fake or hostile. --Abd (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

following up on citations and hints in the Skeptical Inquirer article

The article then turns to its primary focus: quack cures, which for CSICP purposes means, I think, cures deceptively promoted as having a basis in demonstrated fact of efficacy, and which may include unproven claims about the etiology of the disorder. (A cure that was openly promoted as having some *possibility* of effectiveness, based on, say, unconfirmed research presented as such, with no proof, probably would not be considered quack, but there may be an exception here, I'll get to that.)

Bowd then explores the claimed cures and the "outright misinformation that often accompanies them," and the latter is often about cause.

Diet. Now, in typical Skeptical Inquirer style, Dowd skewers various claims, and, in the process (as I've seen before) perforates as ridiculous some claims or cures that might actually have some serious basis, even though not proven. In particular, there is very little research done on diet, compared to drug research. Clearly, the first web site Dowd examines is basically engaged in promoting its products, using a farrago of various ideas about dietary contributions coming from many sources. My impression from my own experience is that some of the suggestions might help some ADHD patients to some degree, and, in particular, because some dietary factors can have similar influences on brain chemistry as do certain drugs used with ADHD. I've done both, experimented with diet and drugs, and this particular primary sources claims that there is some benefit in some dietary interventions, but that it is not as powerful as drugs. On the other hand, it's a lot cheaper and quite possibly safer in the long term. Note, also, I take the drugs, every day, and do not look forward to days without them. (And I follow some of the recommendations, and in particular, those which have the strongest basis in body chemistry. Other recommendations from that web site I see as pure pseudoscience, quite contrary to research results.)

Another web site is concerned with toxins and other environmental causes for ADHD, selling herbs, and, indirectly, books. However, this site, according to Bowd, "recommends 'eliminating sugars (frutis, juices, milk products, and refined, simple carbohydrates) from the children's diet,' and claims Dr. Atkins found that this 'can correct most ADHD.'" Now, this is interesting. The Atkins diet isn't quackery, it was based on a long history of research, it wasn't invented by Atkins, he merely resurrected what had been common medical knowledge prior to the 1970s, and which was, unfortunately, out of favor politically for roughly thirty years, due to a quite complex situation that is well-detailed by Gary Taubes. If Atkins said it, there might be a basis for it, though it might only be anecdotal. A physician like Atkins, treating thousands upon thousands of patients, will certainly develop concepts based on clinical experience, even if they have never been proven through scientific studies; some of these might pan out if the research is done, some not.

Bowd considers it "outrageous that the purveyors of these unproven treatments are taking money from vulnerable parents desperately seeking help for their children. But of equal concern is their deliberate -- and often successful ploy of creating unreasonable fears and anxiety about the use of prescription drugs of proven efficacy. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (2005), methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta) and other stimulant medications are both safe and effective." (And Bowd goes on to give other sources for this.) Now, I have mixed feelings about this. Is methylphenidate "safe and effective"? Effective, definitely, at least in certain ways. But is it safe? If this is a safe drug, why is it that my physician can't fax the prescription in, as he can with lots of truly dangerous drugs. I have to present identification when I hand in the prescription and when I pick it up. And, of course, it would be highly illegal for me to give (or sell) any of it to anyone else. If it's safe, why all the precautions? Now, there are answers for this, but, bottom line, the drug is not considered safe in the ordinary sense. Properly used it seems to be quite safe (though there are still some concerns), and it has been used for many years, enough to make it likely that serious long-term side effects would probably have surfaced. However, there was a caveat in that: what if it is improperly used? And with any drug, there is that risk. Another drug I've taken for ADHD is bupropion. The dosage I took was the maximum dose allowed before there is risk of convulsions (and I experienced, subjectively, almost no effect -- but my wife said it made my "demeanor denicer.") Is this "safe"? Once I accidentally took a double dose. It happens. I felt a bit strange.... Safe? Again, it might be worth the risk, but I don't think of taking such a large dose of anything that hasn't been researched, long-term, continuously for years, as being safe.

On the other hand, it isn't safe to have untreated ADHD. Lots of us become addicts of various kinds, and addiction can be life-threatening; for some the mortality rate is horrific. So, as a parent, I'd be balancing the risks. And, yes, I'd certainly look at diet, for lots of reasons, not just ADHD. (I have five adult children, and all of them identify as having ADHD and treat it in various ways. I've mentioned before that my brother, who is eleven years older than I, may have been among the first teenagers to be treated for hyperactivity with stimulant drugs. I did not find this out until a year ago, I had no such treatment -- and I wasn't considered hyperactive.)

Now, what about that diet connection? Is there some usable source behind this? Bowd cites several sources; I was searching through them and, in fact, found a fair number of recent studies indicating association between various aspects of diet and ADHD. I need to move on tonight, and want, before I close this comment, to address the Atkins connection. However, this was too good not to report:

ADHD Riddle Solved.(The Well; Medicine)(attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder). Time 170.22 (Nov 26, 2007): p49. (421 words) "The cortex, or outer layer of gray matter--which is responsible for such things as planning movement and suppressing inappropriate thoughts or actions--thickens from back to front during childhood and then thins out in adolescence, as unused neural connections go the way of football fans' empty beer cups. [...] But in a surprising new study, kids with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)--which affects 3% to 5% of school-age children--hit peak thickness in some regions an average of three years later than other kids. And the developmental lags are most pronounced in the part of the cortex that supports attention and planning. [...] In the meantime, scientists caution that the news that children with ADHD appear to follow normal brain-development patterns, albeit a few years behind their peers, should not be taken as an O.K. to throw away their Ritalin. To the contrary, one of the study's co-authors, Dr. Judith Rapoport of the National Institute of Mental Health, says another study the team just submitted for publication (but which has yet to be peer-reviewed) suggests that in a few key areas of the brain that relate to attention and focus, kids with ADHD hew more closely to typical development trajectories only as long as they're on the stimulants. But when they go off their meds, she says, "they fall off the normal curve."

Again, what does this prove? Could thickness of cortex be related to attention, i.e., is the brain development driving the behavior, or is the behavior driving the brain development? Memory is encoded in neural connections; how much does the content of experience affect the brain development? Are ADHD kids somehow "experience deprived." Perhaps staring off into space is not the most enriching experience possible! These phenomena are interconnected, and teasing out what is cause and what is effect may take many more years of research. On the other hand, what the bleep do I know?

[41], a manual for schools, includes a section on criticisms of DSM-IV, that should be useful for this article.

Finally, after wading through screen after screen of irrelevant hits, I found something on Atkins and ADHD, the participation of the Medical Director of the Atkins Center (at least back then, this was 1998) in an online forum. It has quite a bit of material relevant to the controversies article; the extent to which it could be used is certainly debatable. However, on the topic of the attempt to treat ADHD with diet Dr. Pescatore would appear to be an expert. There is mention of a book, "In September 1998, Feed Your Kids Well, will be published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc." I think there is a very good chance that this contains material on ADHD and diet, and this is a published source by a major publisher.

And, as well, I found a medical information site hosted by the University of Maryland Medical Center that gives information and references for alternative treatments for ADHD: [42]. [sig added:]--Abd (talk

I agree. Also, disagreements in the field, any field, do not necessarily rise to the stature of "controveries" as science uses the scientific method which implies that there will be a certain proportion of of results that do not support the major premise. Further, it is likely that those labelled ADHD are not a uniform population of individuals, ADHD may have many unrecognized variants as do most psychiatric diagnoses. To elevate and categorize an area of relatively new reasearch into levels of "controveries" rather than to bodies of differing opinions appears to make a war out of a fact-finding process. Mattisse —Preceding comment was added at 18:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Most recent introduction is inappropriate and was reverted.

This was the introduction before I restored the previous version by Clockback.

The condition Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was described only a few decades ago and is applied mostly to children who won‘t do as they are told. Between 2 and 5 per cent of the school-age population is claimed to suffer from it. Children with ADHD are unusually inattentive, hyperactive and show impulsive behaviour at home, school and in social settings – to a degree that is inappropriate for their age and development. However, studies have found that additives in food cause hyperactivity and a proportion of every generation have found certain activities boring and have been described as disruptive yet they have previously not been drugged; a common treatment for ADHD. It therefore remains a controversial disorder. In some countries, notably the UK and Australia, concern has been voiced by news sources, social critics, religions, and individual medical professionals about it's treatment and even it’s existence Despite it being a well validated clinical diagnosis, ethical and legal issues with regard to treatment have been key areas of concern

This opening is extremely controversial. The sources are from news outlets, which are not reputable for scientific info. Furthermore, these sources contradict much of what is said on the main ADHD page. It is written in an un-encyclopedic style, using poor word choice, and has an overly skeptical tone inappropriate for the topic. Sifaka ^talk 01:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK then :-) But few of the sources in my last edit were news outlets, like the study by Prof. Warner, which I will want to include at some point. The news sources were there to reflect the controversy in the minds of the media and the public. I want to change the refs list to state what the refs are (currently) so I'll do that. And I still think it a good point to consider who we are writing for and not make the lanuage too scary, especially early on. I think Clockback is well versed in knowing how to pitch his writing to a readership so I'm happy for his intro to stand, but I hope he will read my contribution and consider it, especially with regard to hyperactivity caused by modern living and the propensity to diagnose a neurobehavioual disorder and prescribe treatment without proper consideration of external factors. Maybe the 'over-diagnosis' section would be appropriate? Miamomimi (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not too scary would be a standard likely to POV skew the article. "Scary" could be coming from relevant notable and sourced fact -- which means it should be in the article, or from opinion or conclusion, notable or otherwise. The latter is a judgment call, and it can be a complex one. Frequently I've seen the argument that "it will confuse readers" used to justify exclusion of fact relevant to the balance of an article, by promoters of a POV which is favored by the exclusin, which is similar to "too scary." The writing style of a newspaper columnist, absolutely appropriate for his profession, is generally not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Imagine his writing style in the regular pages of a reputable newspaper! No, newspapers will allow that style only on an editorial page, where authors may opine to their heart's content, and opinion that is seriously biased may be included, and, indeed, is sometimes what editors want because it will engage the readers. Among other things, it's entertainment. I'm simply noting that "pitch" implies a POV that is being pushed.

The introduction should be rigorously neutral, and it should not contain anything that is not established and sourced elsewhere in the article; thus it does not require immediate citations, ordinarily. So what was said above is correct: to some extent, we have been proceeding backwards, debating the introduction and what should be in it before establishing what is stable in the article body. This is actually a POV approach, and it has long been my experience that POV editors will, quite understandably, focus on what is in the introduction. If we have the article body, then the introduction is a technical writing piece, requiring no research or argument about facts, but only about fair and neutral summarization of the article. Until then, I suggest that the introduction be minimal, and, in particular, there is a sourced and peer-reviewed summary of some aspects of the controversy in the Skeptical Inquirer, which could directly form the basis of the introduction. An introduction may be very brief, with an article in flux, though ultimately it should cover all major aspects of the subject, giving the reader a preview of what is in the article. Some readers are going to read only the introduction; they should not reasonably be expected to go away from reading it with a skewed POV.

I've been reading the sources, and, frankly, it seems common that they have been misrepresented in the article. An editor may read a source, fit it into his or her own conceptions and opinions, and then report the source as if it expressed those opinions. To some extent, this happens helplessly, because we will, for various reasons, often summarize a source. But when we summarize a source, we use different words, and it is common that the different words have a different range of meanings and implications. As well, even when the exact words are used, those words may have different meanings in different contexts. Bottom line, as a minimum, when we are dealing with a controversial edit, the exact language of the source should be available to us, at least in Talk, and an editor should be prepared to be considered responsible for accurately quoting it and including sufficient context to establish a presumption of lack of context error.

Now, more centrally to the point: Controversy is about opinion, and opinion is not a scientific fact, it is a social fact, and thus newspaper articles may be, in some cases, more reliable than peer-reviewed published papers. More reliable, that is, as to opinions, including the notable opinions of non-scientists). A prominent exception would be a review of scientific (and sometimes popular) opinion, published in a peer-reviewed journal, which may be presumed to be more cautiously expressed and more carefully edited than what is in the popular press.

Abd can you please sign your comments? Thanks. I wasn't advocating 'skewing' the article at all, just using simple clear language to introduce the topic and content of the article, which is what an introduction is supposed to do. Peppering the intro with long wordy words and long medical words which are scary and require explanation are out of place in the intro. Such detail is better placed in the relevant sections of the main body of the article. Scuro also comments on this issue here. I'm not going to argue your opinion of whether a graduate professional writer has the wit or ability to alter his writing style according to the task at hand, I'm just looking at another editors work here and the current intro by Clockback is fine by me. Miamomimi (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy is about opinion, and opinion is not a scientific fact, it is a social fact, and thus newspaper articles may be, in some cases, more reliable than peer-reviewed published papers. More reliable, that is, as to opinions, including the notable opinions of non-scientists).

Controversy needs to be attributed. If there is scientific controversy then really an editorial in a newspaper would be a poor citation. You would attribute the controversy to the particular scientist(s) or scientific body which has the controversial opinion. I.E. English scientists from the University of C believe that..... If the controversy is unique to a religion then you attribute it to the religion, and likewise social critics or other sources. It would also be good to quanitify and qualify the attribution. IE All practicing Budists believe that there are no mental disorders and consequently believe that ADHD does not exist. At all times the majority opinion must be noted and recieve proper weighting.--scuro (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

sentence two -ethical and legal concerns

Despite it being a well-validated clinical diagnosis, ethical and legal issues with regard to treatment have been key areas of concern. [3] - The citation doesn't match what is stated. --scuro (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation states:
Attention deficit–hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remains a controversial disorder, despite it now being a well validated clinical diagnosis. Ethical and legal issues are important in determining how doctors should behave in offering a diagnosis or treatment that may generate strong and unpredictable reactions from children, their families, or other agencies. A model for routine ethical practice was proposed, based on three sets of assumptions. Firstly, that ethical practice is consistent with the four principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and respect for autonomy. Secondly, ethical concerns lead to legal processes, whose task is to ensure ethical practice. Thirdly, that we are working in the interests of our patients. Current relevant literature was organised in terms of this model, and recommendations for practice derived from it. Though there is no general ethical problem regarding either the routine diagnosis or treatment of ADHD, ethical difficulties surround some special cases, especially when doctors are working in conjunction with other agencies or coping with non-medical frameworks. Particular care needs to be taken with confidentiality and consent, the limits of which are currently confused. The model worked well with everyday ethical problems, though more difficult cases required careful individual scrutiny.
As far as I can see the citation matches almost exactly what is stated, I've replaced it. Miamomimi (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Status as a disorder

Scientific researchers have found ADHD causes impairment in life functioning and that behaviour associated with ADHD has been clinically shown to be abnormal in those with ADHD.[7]. - The citation doesn't match what is stated. Mimi ^(yack) 17:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

All the subsections of DESCRIPTION AND DIAGNOSIS cover the behaviors and processes which are impaired or shown to be altered in those with ADHD. Executive level control deficits, inattention, and impulse control to name a few are often altered between normal children and ADHD children. These manifest as inability to controlling themselves or being unable to stay on task both of which are important life skills. The top part of etiology of [43] touches on some of the altered behaviors as well. Maybe can you elaborate on what your concern is? I am going to readd the section. Sifaka ^talk 07:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sifaka, I maintain my position and obviously don't want to edit war so have removed it while we discuss. This looks the same ref I used before. Here it doesn't seem to me to match what is stated; "Scientific researchers have found ADHD causes impairment in life functioning" - well ADHD doesn't kill you and 'impairment in life functioning' seems to refer to the difficulties of modern western living which are argued to not produce 'abnormality' but discontent and protest in some. Hence the controversy, and rather than illustrate that controversy the section seemed to be a statement of the irrefutable truth of ADHD. There is no clinical evidence that objectively tests for the presence of ADHD and the presence of ADHD cannot be shown, it is a subjective diagnosis, hence the controversy. As this article is to detail that controversy I think that section would be better in the ADHD article. Regards, Mimi ^(yack) 01:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The diagnosis of most disorders is subjective including migraines. Do migraines not exist? Or Autism? Or Tourettes? Or Parkinsons? All have a subjective diagnosis. When you look at the hyperactive diagnosis of ADHD...it has a remarkable predictive value and life outcomes are significantly impaired in many areas including school, work, family life...you name it.--scuro (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion above seems off the point. ADHD is defined by a set of symptoms, most of which are some sort of dysfunction or other. This statement is a tautology: "Scientific researchers have found ADHD causes impairment in life functioning and that behaviour associated with ADHD has been clinically shown to be abnormal in those with ADHD."

To consider it other than a tautology, we have to believe that there is some specific thing other than a mere diagnostic category that is "ADHD." Perhaps there is such a thing, but this hasn't been clearly demonstrated, it still is true that ADHD is a diagnostic category and, as such, it is a set of symptoms, found in association, most of which show some kind of "impairment in life functioning," and "abnormal behavior." Not terribly abnormal, and often simply developmentally abnormal, but this is still true. There is also a detail: Mimi, above, challenged this text saying that the source did not say what was taken from it. That's a serious defect, if true, and it was not addressed except by denial when Scuro reverted Mimi's removal. I could look up the text myself, but .... don't edit war. I took the text out until it's established here as legitimate. Quote the source! --Abd (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I did just look at the source, and a source like that cannot be cited en masse; it should be easy for a reader to verify the claim that is based on the source, and it surely is not. Do we have to read a whole tome to find that part of it which is relevant? The course appears to be, as it were, a textbook, but it, in the beginning, notes that it presents the author's theory about ADHD. If this source is going to be used, exact quotes *must* be given here to support text in the article, and I rather doubt that there is anything there that belongs in the controversies article. What's the controversy? So even if the source is good, what is taken from the source, as presented, isn't. --Abd (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• ADHD is defined by a set of symptoms - ADHD is defined by impairment. No impairment no disorder and it has to be in two settings.
• This statement is a tautology: "Scientific researchers have found ADHD causes impairment in life functioning and that behaviour associated with ADHD has been clinically shown to be abnormal in those with ADHD." - can we not use plain English? I know you write for those "few" who get you, but pragmatically speaking, are we not here to communicate to the whole community?
• ''To consider it other than a tautology, we have to believe that there is some specific thing other than a mere diagnostic category that is "ADHD. Perhaps there is such a thing, but this hasn't been clearly demonstrated, " - If you knew more on the topic, your point wouldn't be an issue.
• Mimi, above, challenged this text saying that the source did not say what was taken from it. That's a serious defect, if true, and it was not addressed except by denial when Scuro reverted Mimi's removal. I could look up the text myself, but .... don't edit war. -if you're not willing to do the reading then really why are you butting in?
• I took the text out until it's established here as legitimate. Quote the source! - even a bigger mistake...deleting sourced material based on an assumption.

Here is the Reader's Digest condensed notes on the topic for those who don't like to read. http://www.cdc.gov/NCBDDD/adhd/dadburden.htm If this source is not acceptable simple ask, more sources like this can be found. --scuro (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My, my, a lotta words for nothing accomplished. ADHD is defined by impairment. So we would say that "ADHD causes impairment"? It is impairment, a specific collection of impairments or abnormal behaviors as defined by DSM or another standards manual. Is there some text, supported by source, proposed to be inserted? I did not see the text from the CDC to support the text removed. Interpretation of source isn't allowed, unless it is not controversial, is mere paraphrase. Further, I don't see this text as at all necessary or appropriate for this article. Pap.

How about "ADHD is a disorder, resulting in disordered behavior. Scientists have proven that abnormal behavior is not normal." Is that really any worse? --Abd (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• So we would say that "ADHD causes impairment"? you got it Pontiac.
• It is impairment, a specific collection of impairments or abnormal behaviors as defined by DSM or another standards manual. - Impairment in life functioning .......as was noted in the text before you removed it. But you knew that already or you wouldn't have removed the text. Impairment is defined by subjective assessment by the assessor. I would say no friends and failing several subjects in school would do it for most who assess the disorder, especially if the subject had average to above average intelligence. Now don't get your knickers in a knot here. A good assessor would not make an assessment based on the DSM symptoms and impaired setting alone. They would look further. Some may choose a more formal adaptive assessment and look at other angles.
• Is there some text, supported by source, proposed to be inserted? I did not see the text from the CDC to support the text removed. Interpretation of source isn't allowed, unless it is not controversial, is mere paraphrase. Further, I don't see this text as at all necessary or appropriate for this article. Pap. Thank you for your opinion. It would be a pleasant surprise if you could be a little more accommodating...especially if you are the one asking questions for understanding.
• How about "ADHD is a disorder, resulting in disordered behavior. Scientists have proven that abnormal behavior is not normal." Is that really any worse?- and now you are just being facetious.--scuro (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a definition right from the source provided earlier. "The domains of impairment in ADHD include: academic achievement/school performance, family life, peer/social interactions, self-esteem/perceptions, and accidental injuries and adaptive functioning".--scuro (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Scuro - I agree that hyperactivity/symptoms of ADHD make functioning in society very difficult and frustrating and I'm not saying these symptoms don't exist. All I'm mindful of is that part of the controversy is that these symptoms can be caused by a variety of reasons, and are sometimes normal behaviours for the causation, yet currently they are treated as one syndrome that predominantly attracts one treatment. Part of the controversy is that treatment; drugs, and also the failure to investigate or recognise at patient interface the causes of such behaviours, such as diet, environment, trauma etc. and treat accordingly. I don't think this article is the correct place for the section in question, as stated above, I think it should be moved to the ADHD article. This one should focus on the controversy - there's an entire article claiming that ADHD exists without question and the controversy article states from the off that "Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a developmental neurobehavioural disorder widely recognized by the medical and scientific community as causing impairment, especially in children." I see no reason to repeat that. The controversy article should focus on the controversy. Mimi ^(yack) 11:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on all the points you made. Thanks for being a considerate voice of reason. It would be best if a very thorough assessment were done in every case by well trained personal. After all these kids are having difficulty...sometimes great difficulty functioning in life. If you are going to label someone you better be sure that you have the label correct and that there is appropriate service available. Keep in mind though that medication works for many who don't have ADHD but have brain trauma or other causes of ADHD symptoms...after all the same areas of the brain have often been put under stress.

What I think should happen is that the valid points made in this article belong in the main article. This article is in major flux...as a sign of good faith we can leave it out and reconsider, if necessary, when the article is more stable and accurate. That is, if other editors have no problem with this.--scuro (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Scuro - I agree with the comments you've made and have no problem with your suggestion.

I am concerned that an 'unverified claims' tag is on the 'Alternative theories concerning ADHD' section. Both yourself and Snailgoop did some good work on that section. I wonder if perhaps we could all work together to sort that problem out? I'll check sources when I can. Regards, Mimi ^(yack) 14:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure I can help. I think the first thing that needs a template to let people know that this page is a work in progress. That way they will be more forgiving. Is this the right one? {{ isrev|Wikipedia|Example|template page|etc. }}

The social construct theory may go back a way to Thomas Szasz and beyond. That stuff looks to be on the antipsychiatry article. Why reinvent the wheel? If there are articles on things like hunter/gatherer lets link out. If there is a large section like social construct...find a link out, trim, or create an article to link out. What I see as a problem is undue weight for sections where previous editors have a major interest and have created a lot more content...as compared to other equally or more important areas that have less info because editors were not as interested in that topic. How does this approach sound? Focus on the alternative theories perhaps everyone working on one.--scuro (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave the template choice up to you but the idea sounds constructive for that section, also an invite to Snailgoop and maybe Barrylb? I think if an editors work is destined for change it's nice to give them an opportunity to do that. Something has cropped up I need to deal with Scuro, can you drive this for a while until I can help further? Hope so, I'll be able to help in a little while. Linking out rather than repeating sounds good if there is an article but some repetition may be necessary to make a point - I'm just concerned a reader would be landed with a lot of links to follow in order to understand a point but as long as the point is clear then I think it a good suggestion. Regards, Mimi ^(yack) 19:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to slowly work on the Hunter/gatherer section.--scuro (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

which article?

Does this belong here in the controversy article or be better in the ADHD article do you think?

Genetic basis of ADHD
Research indicates that there is a highly probable link between genetics and ADHD. Research suggests that ADHD is a heterogeneous disorder and that a large majority of ADHD arises from a combination of various genes.[15] Dr. Joseph Glenmullen has focused his criticism based on the single gene theory, "no claim of a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation". Although many theories exist, there is no definitive biological, neurological, or genetic etiology for "mental illness."[citation needed]

Miamomimi (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It belongs on the controversy page. There already is a causes i.e. etiology section in the ADHD article which goes over the most likely genetic theories. The first sentence is irrelevant because no single gene is implicated in ADHD. Rather the main viewpoint is that "ADHD does not follow the traditional model of a "genetic disease" and is better viewed as a complex interaction among genetic and environmental factors," and "although several genome-wide searches have identified chromosomal regions that are predicted to contain genes that contribute to ADHD susceptibility, to date no single gene with a major contribution to ADHD has been identified."

My interpretation of the second sentence is that it is basically saying "Although there are many biological, neurological, and genetic theories on what causes a specific mental illness, none of them have been proved." Assuming I have interpreted it correctly this statement is confusing the common and scientific definitions of "theory" and "proof". Strict "proof" only exists in mathematics, so it is not possible to "prove" anything is science. Rather there are "theories" which in their scientific sense are simply an explanation or model that makes testable predictions and has not been falsified. It seems the second statement is trying to capitalize on the colloquial definition of the the word "theory," falsely characterizing it as a matter of opinion rather than of fact or evidence.

I should probably include this response in this quotes section, post modification. Sifaka ^talk 02:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sifake - ok no worries. BTW, I've taken out this edit: "However, not all hyperactivity in children is due to ADHD, and dietary factors have not been implicated in ADHD etiology. " as that was kinda the point I was making and it looks as if it's a direct rebuttal of my previous edit but it's a good ref and I'd like to re-insert it with another of mine own (have found the copy I needed) and see what you think if thats ok? I have an errand to do that can't wait but will do this tonight and as it's here I won't forget it. Regards, Miamomimi (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, the article isn't going anywhere. It's good that you are checking the sources to see if they actually source what they are actually supposed to source by the way. Cheers, Sifaka ^talk 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok Sifaka, it's up, though I'll probably re-read tommorow - I thought that ref of yours was useful as it highlighted a tension in the genetic argument yet I wanted to use it in its current location as it demonstrated current medical guidelines. Sadly the one I quote from isn't online :-( regards, Miamomimi (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Clinical Research Involving Children split into a new article

I am concerned that this paragraph is not sufficiently specific to ADHD. It may be more appropriate to create an separate article for the topic since I can't find an article or a section of an article on WP at the moment that deals with the topic of children in clinical research. There is also the possibility that it could me merged into an already existing article like the ethical conduct section of clinical research, but I think there is enough debate on this matter to warrant a full article. Sifaka ^talk 08:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Done http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_problems_using_children_in_clinical_trials

Restepc (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Potential re-organization of the alternative theories section

I originally wrote this on the ADHD discussion page but I thought I would move it here, elaborate, and see if this proposal generates any interest. In order to clean up and organize the Alternative Theories section, it might be nice to structure each theory by issues. Potential issues might be

• What is ADHD? a disorder (i.e. a brain malfunction), a distinct phenotype within the normal range of human behavior, non-existent?
• What causes ADHD?
• How should ADHD be treated, if at all. With stimulant meds? Psychological therapy? A good wallop to the behind?
• Should there be accommodations/special aid for people with ADHD?

This might make the essentials of each theory easier to understand and could make it simpler to compare viewpoints with each other and mainstream scientific theory. Each viewpoint would be structured sort of like this:

Small introduction to each Alternative theory's basic premise/proponents

stance on issue 1

stance on issue 2

stance on issue 3...

theory specific issues (i.e. is the premise plausible etc...)

Any interest? Sifaka ^talk 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is going to be a lengthy thing, shouldn't it be a separate article?--scuro (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

reworking article so as to combine two articles together?

Simply what I am proposing is prune this article until it is lean and pure for the purposes of moving all or most of it onto the main article. There is no way that we can move most of this stuff over now because of undue weight. One way to do that is to link out of the article. There is a hunter vs. farmer theory article. If you folks agree, I'll trim the Hartmann stuff on the article with a link out, so you can see where we should go with this. --scuro (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Combining the articles has always seemed sensible to me, however, when you say "prune this article until it is lean and pure for the purposes of moving" it rings alarm bells! If this article is factual and backed up with references and the facts presented are consistent with the subject then those facts shouldn't be pruned for the purposes of moving. If opposition is likely, due to the opinion of undue weight, then perhaps a mention of the main points of the controversy could be put in the ADHD article, linking to the 'controversy' article for greater detail. I think that would be a good idea as someone has lately missed the link to the controversy in the ADHD article, which may have prompted your suggestion. I agree with your suggestion that explaining a theory that is detailed in it's own article is misplaced here and linking out seems sensible to me. (also, pls see last comment in 'Status as a disorder' section) Mimi ^(yack) 19:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well lets look at Hunter Gatherer theory. It has reached the mainstream population, it can be well referenced, but it is neither majority or minority opinion. It does deserve mention, but truncated mention. It deserves a few sentences at best, on the main page with a link out to the article H&G. The same goes for a lot of stuff in this article. The meatier issues deal with medication and they would most likely be longer on the main article because they may be minority or even majority opinion. But I'm not going to research and find great citations for the fun of it. The purpose of merging this article is to eliminate it. No other mental disorder also has a controversy article and this article has taken on the role of coatrack for a good deal of it's existence. I'm not going to expend a great deal of energy to edit and refine controversial viewpoints and then merge them into the main article to have the controversy page stand. It would be coatrack waiting for a new closet full of POV pushing edits. The choice is yours.--scuro (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Mimi. You are new here but if you take the time to go over what has been deleted and which links removed (by the mysterious person suggesting we do the "pruning") you will get a great education in this person's disingenuous motives. I urge you to take a look at his history and how he manages to make critics out to be members of the lunatic fringe. I have recently made explicit the position of an Oxford Professor, winner of the yearly Faraday award from the Royal Society , for her contributions to the scientific education of the English. She is very concerned about what is going on with ADHD. I'll bet he will remove it and leave criticism from the Scientologists, thereby continuing the myth that critics are antipsychiatrists or members of cults. That he continues to rule here is amazing. He wears down his critics who have better things to do then go on and on and on with him. The time he spends on this article has made me wonder whether he does this for a living. I know that sounds paranoid but I have seriously begun to wonder about him. I have asked him repeatedly to identify himself, but he refuses--Ss06470 (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ss, you are aware that you are breaking wiki guidelines, and I ask to what end? ( WP:NPA. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia". ) Mimi is fully aware that my viewpoint is radically different from yours or hers, yet refreshingly she seeks to work together to seek consensus. She doesn't assume bad faith and nor should anyone. If you believe an editor truly is gaming the system, seek help or make a formal complaint. Otherwise what you post will simply be seen as flaming, very off topic, and bad form. I hope to work with you in the future to change the article for the better.--scuro (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

To what end? To alert her to the history of seemingly innocent editing that always has the same result, the elimination or trivialization of serious criticism of current dogma and practice--Ss06470 (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you helpless? Can you not point out the specific edits and discuss in talk why they should not be removed, changed, or added.... as other editors do? Could you be assuming bad faith on my part, by not to follow wiki guidelines, and seek to eliminate a viewpoint that is foreign to yours by building me up as a strawman? Have not other editors supported your viewpoint? Please stick to content, your approach is making talk highly personal and I do not not appreciate it at all. Please desist in this practice immediately. Make a complaint if you have any solid ground to believe that I am not following guidelines. Please don't waste everyones time by focusing on contributors instead of content on the talk page. Can I be anymore clear? WP:NPA --scuro (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to cut and paste huge tracts of debate (and ad hominum attacks on your part!!) that have been a part of the discussion here with me and many others who have disagreed with you. That is why I asked her to review your history. I did so and it is amazaing how you use the same tactics. Despite being corrected by me and others you invariably manage to place critics as "antipsychiatry" belonging to scientology, Breggin supporters or Fred Baughman's dupes. You use that again and again. You have managed to chase away, in complete frustration , person after person with your inability to hear what they were saying. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder&diff=115437334&oldid=115435277

Give it up User:68.35.248.242 Give it up User:68.35.248.242. Your viewpoints belong in the controversy of adhd article. "extensive conflicts of interests" could come right off Fred Baughman's website. Again it doesn't matter what you believe, Wiki wants reliable citations. Virtually every researcher and all the US national institutions that deal with ADHD would not see it that way. Yours isn't even the minority viewpoint of experts but rather the controversial viewpoint.

Your NIH point is just another in a long line of red herrings not ment to improve the article. The 1998 consensus was about diagnosis and treatment, hence the title, "Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)". The later and international consensus clearly makes the link between ADHD, the brain, and genetics. --scuro 12:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

last word, wrong I believe you are incorrect. Here is why.

The viewpoints of others are irrelevant to what I am saying and I believe those that author and edit this site frequently write off any criticism as coming from a radical point of view and do not stop to consider the validity of claims. I am not Fred Baughman...

Here is a note from someone else who gave up. Dr. Sobo, I am glad to see a new voice of reason and science on here. With even the admins vandalizing articles, we need experts on here to stand up to the zealots. Thank you for your comments on my page and your work in the field of psychiatry. Jkhamlin 03:38, 16 May 2007 (Jkhamlin is a medical student)

One...more...time. I have no need to prove anything. It is the defenders of this ridiculous piece of pseudo-scientific hogwash ( and of the laughably coy article about 'controversy' in which every gigantic doubt is followed by by a slippery 'but' qualification in no wise equal to the doubt expressed) who need to provide proof. It is precisely because they can't that they want to suppress the truth that there is some doubt about it. Whatever would happen if the uninformed got hold of that piece of knowledge? The 'single point' I wish to pick, and have picked, and propose to stick to, is that the diagnosis is controversial, a statement of the blindingly obvious ( for which I have provided ample evidence even for those unable to see the blindingly obvious). This 'single point' was censored from the article within hours of my placing it there, by its righteous self-appointed guardians, and would be so censored again, along with pious warnings about my misbehaviour, should I do so again. You can put it back whenever you like, using the references and links I provide in the draft I wrote. No need to trouble me. But you won't. You're not even remotely paying attention to what I say. This change, a statement that 'ADHD' is a controversial diagnosis is an incredibly minor one compared with what I would be entitled to do in a fair forum. The advocates of the existence of 'ADHD' need to prove it exists, and haven't done so because they have no proof that it does, and know they have no proof. That's settled, I think. None of you has offered any such proof or evidence despite my repeated urgings for you to do so. Having swallowed the flabby camel of 'ADHD', they now strain at the gnat of admitting that Terence Kealey and Susan Greenfield and the latest Buffalo University study are evidence of doubt about the diagnosis. If I 'write well' (and thanks so much) it is because I tell the truth. I'll stick to making sure the warning label remains until such time as this pernicious rubbish goes the way of pre-frontal lobotomies. PH signed in as Clockback (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

.

The reason you and some of your allies are the issue is that you manage to prevail, not by logic but persistence. You leave absurd statements on the page by all kind of fringe groups but not statements and arguments that are more reasonable. It drives reasonable people to fury, and finally they leave. This is just a quickly put together sampling, but if you want the whole thing I will be more than happy to document your pattern and the insults you have regularly directed at your opponents It is almost laughable that you regularly warn others of not sticking to the task at hand and insulting you.

Finally, in reviewing a good number of the debates you have entered into, the key one appears to be whether ADHD is or is not a predominantly biological condition. This is the issue that the pharmaceutical industry has spent undue energy trying to end all debate about. As evidence of this assertion I will post something from Professor Pelham who changed from a paid "expert" to a staunch opponent of the drug industry (I, by the way do not believe all of the problems come from corrupt "experts" in the hire of drug companies, but I know they have an absurd influence See the editorial by Marica Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine Is Academic Medicine for Sale)

"It Was Like A Whitewash"

Enter Dr. William Pelham, director of the Center for Children and Families at State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY). A leading ADHD researcher for 30 years, Pelham is a former member of the scientific advisory board for McNeil Pharmaceuticals, which produces Tylenol and markets Concerta, a popular stimulant medication trademarked by Alza Corp. of Mountain View, Calif. Over his career, Pelham has penned over 250 research papers on ADHD, many with industry grants. In 2002, he was given a lifetime achievement award by the world's largest ADHD patient advocacy group, Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD). In interviews with AlterNet, Pelham provided glimpses into the dubious methods drug maker McNeil-Alza uses to ensure that studies it funds produce favorable results for its ADHD medications. Between 1997 and 1999, he was paid by McNeil to conduct one of three studies used to get FDA approval. The company currently uses the three studies to claim that 96 percent of children taking Concerta experience no problems in appetite, growth, or sleep. But Pelham says the studies were flawed. The original intent of the studies was to measure both side effects and main effects of the drug. But two of the three studies, including Pelham's, required that the subjects had to already be taking MPH and responding well to it in order to enter the study. In other words, by stacking the studies with patients already successfully taking stimulants, McNeil ensured the subjects would be unlikely to register side effects, Pelham says.

"It's really misleading and I'm surprised the FDA is letting them use the studies to advertise no side effects," he says. "They had no side effects because they took only people with only a positive history of medication. This is really pushing meds without telling the full picture." There was also pressure from the company to tweak the findings, he says. Part of Pelham's study involved "providing parent training to parents, having a simple behavioral program in place on Saturday lab days, and establishing simple behavioral programs in the children's regular school classrooms." When his paper was in the galley proof stage at the medical journal Pediatrics, Pelham says he joined a conference call with a number of senior people from the corporation who lobbied him to change what he had written in the paper. "The people at Alza clearly pushed me to delete a paragraph in the article where I was saying it was important to do combined treatments (medication and behavioral)," he says, adding that they also pushed him to water down or eliminate other sentences and words that did not dovetail into their interests. "It was intimidating to be one researcher and have all these people pushing me to change the text." McNeil offered no direct response to the allegations.

"We cannot comment on unsubstantiated allegations," says Gary Esterow, a spokesman for McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals, in a written statement. "The protocols and full study reports for these clinical trials were reviewed by the FDA, and provided the basis for FDA approval. Prior to publication, there was ample opportunity for full discussion of the data among the investigators. Publication of the findings reflect the prevailing opinion of the authors and is further supported by the peer review process of the scientific journals in which these studies appear." Pelham says McNeil didn't stop there. The company commissioned a follow-up study on the conversion study mentioned above. This time McNeil did the data analysis and coordinated the paper writing. "I insisted on seeing the analyses and having major inputs into the manuscript and it was like pulling teeth to get wording and analyses changed," he says. "It was like a whitewash, a praise to Concerta." Pelham says the company submitted the paper twice to the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Drafts were sent to Pelham several times but he says he never returned anything with his signature. In the end, however, he says the paper was accepted without his knowledge and published with his name on it).

My assumption for the reason Pelham was pressured to remove the paragraqh emphasizing the importance of combined treatments (medication and behavioral) is that this would expose the limitations of pediatricians, who would be required to meet this standard of care. By far, the biggest presecribers of Concerta is pediatricians. Use would go radically down if the pediatricians could not believe that they were giving appropriate care based on reasoning that they were simply fixing the chemical imbalance.

Dubious tags

Scuro has put some tags on this section

"The argument in regard to ADHD derives from a serious concern that medical professionals in cooperation with the education system are driving a dangerous trend; namely, that children with ADHD are mentally ill[dubious – discuss], abnormal, disabled, maladaptive, etc., because they do not conform to a standard that has been socially constructed[citation needed], and is ultimately dominated by the interests of a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry[dubious – discuss]."

IMO, the information isnt't exactly dubious, but the section could use a less POV rewrite, particularly the last part.

Perhaps

"The argument in regard to ADHD derives from concerns that medical professionals and individuals within the USA education system are pushing a dangerous viewpoint; namely, that children with ADHD are mentally ill, abnormal, disabled, maladaptive, etc., because they do not conform to a socially constructed norm. Some people have suggested that this viewpoint is ultimately being pushed by the pharmaceutical industry in order to sell Anti-ADHD drugs[citation needed]."

would be better?

Restepc (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Restepc. Mimi ^(yack) 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally the whole section looks to have a lot of OR going on. To me the bigger issue is attribution. Where are these ideas coming from? It's okay if they are POV as long as it is attributed and they don't receive undue weight...after all this is a controversy article.--scuro (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I've certainly heard those opinions expressed before, so I can't imagine it'll be hard to find sources, I'll find a few and put them in when I switch the current version to my suggestion (assuming no-one has a problem with my suggestion between now and then) Restepc (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Switched it, put in a (obviously biased, but that's the point in this case) source, I'll leave this for a week or so in case anyone else has any comments then if not I'll scrap this section of the talk page....assuming that's what's done on wikipedia with discussions which have completely finished with no real disagreements??? Restepc (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't eliminate anything in talk. It's a record and a potential shortcut for editors seeking change to a section. You can't use an obviously biased source, and a personal website...that is unless you were, to say...use a direct quote from the individual and attribute that quote to the individual.--scuro (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.....I've been here quite a while now but still don't know how a lot of things are done. My point about the biased source was that this is a citation to show that some people are of that opinion, therefore I don't really see how a source could be objected to on the grounds that is does express that opinion......

I'm going to insert 'some people including' before Fred B, as right now it sounds a bit like it's just one nutter claiming this, whereas it is in reality a comparatively common viewpoint.

Restepc (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Page numbers, please

I put a couple of tags in the Social construct section (possibly not the right tags) because I would like page numbers for the bits where Timimi talks about "right wing capitalist ideology" and "should favor boys over girls". This is not requested in time-wasting spirit, but because these bits seem not quite to tally with what Timimi says elsewhere.Ancadi (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Diet section

I moved a part discussing the role of diet in ADHD from the "skepticism towards diagnosis" section to a newly created subsection which I uncreatively called "Dietary Link to ADHD" under the newly created major section which I even-more-uncreatively called "Debate About the Causes of ADHD." Feel free to improve upon the names.

The largest change between the content was to find references for and elaborate on both sides of the debate over whether hyperactivity is exacerbated due to certain foods or additives and whether dietary restrictions mitigate ADHD symptoms. I changed the line "After leading the first study of its kind into food additives" to "After leading a study into food additives." The reason for this is that there were several studies into the same food additives previously using similar methods. I also found the ref for the study. I added a citation needed tag to Professor John Warner's quote because quotes should be sourced. (I looked for it but couldn't find it). Finally I removed the line "Eminent practitioners in the field have questioned the rising number of diagnoses of ADHD and its variants" because it doesn't fit in with the diet themed section. If someone wishes to move it elsewhere, fine by me. I think that covers it. Sifaka ^talk 03:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My quote was sourced, there was nothing wanting in the work I provided, I will restore the removed material when I can. If you choose to change the position and thereafter the subject/focus of the sourced work provided, that could be construed as censorship by stealth to suit your POV, which should not occur. Mimi ^(yack) 14:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

removing multiple citations that often don't support the point they are citing

I have eliminated a few citations behind statements where the citations do not support what is stated in the sentence.--scuro (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

These should be examined closely. --Abd (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I did, you are welcome to double check what was done. If you disagree you know the channels to follow.--scuro (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of Scuro revert due to "personal web site" argument

We've discussed this issue many times, Scuro should know better. This is a controversies article. Breggin is a noted critic. His opinions may be cited and sourced from his web site. Don't like it, RFC it. I think it would be a waste of time.--Abd (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That was a different time when personal judgments and attacks were mixed in with talk. Because I did not respond to posts which appeared to contain flamebait, doesn't mean that I conceded any point on this issue. Having said that, I think this should be looked at by a case by case basis. Here is my take on the issue. Generally personal websites should be avoided like the plague. If a personal website is being used to illustrate a controversial and fringe viewpoint, quotes should be used which can be directly attributed to the owner of the website and the quote. The author of the quote should be notable and the quote should attributed to the author. Most importantly such a segment should not undermine undue weight. --scuro (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No concession was implied, rather only prior notice, and there are no formal charges here making it necessary to claim lack of proper notice. "plague" is not mentioned in the guidelines, and personal websites of an expert or person otherwise of note may be, explicitly, cited as evidence that the person actually expressed the argument. Now, a series of requirements were stated. If the material in the article isn't a fair and accepted summary of the point made in the source, that is grounds for correcting it or removing it. Clearly, an editor who placed the source believed that the source was appropriate. What was done here was to remove the source, based on the "personal website" claim, yet now the argument shifts, apparently. Now, it's not the personal website -- because this has just been acknowledged as appropriate for sourcing an opinion by a notable author -- it's, I must guess to some degree, that there is no "direct attribution," but, presmably, an indirect implication. I.e., Breggin didn't say, perhaps, exactly what is in the article -- I have not researched that -- or perhaps there is doubt as to whether or not material on the site may be attributed to him. Wikilawyers could argue for centuries over this, but, bottom line, the text either fairly represents what is on Breggin's web site, or it doesn't. In the former case, the citation is appropriate and has nothing to do with "personal web site" -- which was Scuro's summary of cause for reversion -- or it is not appropriate synthesis and the entire thing should be removed, not just the source. If the substance is correct, and the details wrong, the details should be fixed. --Abd (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the research is once again lacking, and as in the past, it may be better to properly investigate something before one unilaterally changes someone else's edit. They may have done the homework. One could argue that an editor who does not do even the most basic investigation, and make changes based on nothing but pure assumption, shows a marked degree of arrogance. I presume the proper attribution would be to Baughman. If you would like to contribute, please be a little more thorough. I look forward to your future input in this regard.--scuro (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why, yes, of course. simple error of memory, the point was that the source for the statement was [44], and that's Baughman's site. Now, it seems that the editor above is a bit overconcerned, shall we say, about "editor behavior," which is ironic if we look at his history, and all the warnings he has dropped on editor talk pages about not doing this.... but enough. If he wants to complain about editor conduct, apparently he knows how to do it, or imagines that he does. The procedure is outlined at WP:DR and I've explained it to him, as well, in detail. Every editor makes mistakes, and the proper response is to fix them, not to revert them out when the intention is clear, with a blaze of charges of "arrogance."

And the removal of the antipsychiatry adjecive applied to the critic mentioned is based on no asserted reliable source that this is accurate. Looks perjorative to me, in context. Show source, fine, we'll look at it. However, he's a neurologist, and that's probably what should be there. I'll make it so.--Abd (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny how you are not so forgiving when the shoe is on the other foot. Here is what you wrote when I made a "simple error of memory": What you wrote was incorrect, and you have not acknowledged that. I read the source, and it does not mention payment. Period. A statement like that to someone like Clockback simply convinces him that he is arguing with dishonest idiots. Abd, I'd like to work with you but wonder by what standard you want to operate. If we are to work together would you like us to be exact and thorough, or more congenial and forgiving?

I've restored the Anti-P designation with a citation. Baughman has not been a Neurologist for 15 years and now would be notable for his work for scientology and creating anti-psychiatry content. But you knew that. --scuro (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

He has retired from private practice; is his license revoked? Do you have source satisfying WP:RS that calls him "anti-psychiatry"? The web site you sourced isn't reliable. Looks to me like he is "anti-drug-company." It would be convenient to toss all that in the much loonier "Scientology" bin, wouldn't it, or, not quite so offensive, "antipsychiatry, where he would be in better company, people like Szaz and a lot of psychiatrists? Unless you can reliably source it, it's coming out, Scuro. You want to put in something from the antipsychiatry web site, fine. "According to the antipsychiatry web site, ..." What? Does it say that he is "antipsychiatry"? Even if attributed, it may be problematic, and it is, quite simply, an example of what appears to be an extended and persistent attempt to slant the articles involved according to a POV, and, yes, I'm thoroughly aware that I'm writing in full public view and that everything I say can be held against me. Don't bother warning me over this one again. Do what you've been constantly urging me to do if I have a complaint. Tell it to the judge. If you can get a judge to listen. (ask another user, ask an administrator, RFC a question or a user, mediation, arbitration).

By the way, I'll just warn Scuro here this time: he pushed WP:3RR in yhis actions yesterday. 3RR is a bright line, it's actually possible to be blocked below that level. Even one stubborn revert can do it. If I'd intended to do something about it, this warning would have gone on his talk page. That could still happen... --Abd (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to stay out of this mostly, but I'll say that Baughmans wiki article has a section on him being anti-p, as both of you are, according to the talk page and article history, aware...

For as long as Baughmans article says he's anti-p, then that is the consensus view of him by wikipedia and there should be no argument about describing him as anti-p on other pages. If Baughman is not anti-p, then his article should not say that he is, and the subject should be taken up there. If that section on his article should cease to exist then it can be strongly claimed that he shouldn't be described as anti-p elsewhere on wiki, but until then it's my opinion that wikipedia shouldn't contradict itself. Restepc (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Some local article "consensus" -- which may represent the opinion, simply, of a single editor -- cannot trump WP:RS. Wikipedia articles are not RS, ever. What is in one article cannot be used as an argument supporting what is or is not in another. Wikipedia does contradict itself, and it is entirely possible that the article Fred Baughman needs work. Indeed, who's been working on that article? Take a look, and then see who was insisting on "antipsychiatry" here: same editor: User:Scuro. Baughman criticizes, not "psychiatry," but what he calls "biological psychiatry." That his views are then taken up and promoted by some people calling themselves "antipsychiatry" is irrelevant. Unless he takes on the tag himself, or it is shown by reliable source, it's not appropriate here or in the Baughman article (and such a tag would require attribution unless it is not controversial). I looked there and fixed it there too. Thanks for pointing it out. By the way, WP:BLP policy is pretty strict, and this was in violation of it.--Abd (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a huge deal. As I read more and eventually see the two terms linked together, I will change the article. Problem is mainstream websites and media outlets don't write about the anti-psychiatry movement much at all let alone list all the adherents. But Abd knows that. When I do find a website he challenges it as being not suitable. The irony is deep and rich here...since he went to great lengths to allow other unsuitable websites onto this article as citations. Anyone who has listened or read Baughman wouldn't take issue with the Anti-P tag. Abd knows this to. Perhaps user Abd is simply restraining me once again, he believes he has the right to do so.

Dr. Sobo, you are correct that there has been long-term biased push on these articles, and Wikipedia is vulnerable to such efforts. Short-term push can be dealt with, but long-term, persistent warping of an article by someone really determined to do so can be very effective. However, be careful. Thinking of Wikipedia as a battleground can lead you into some serious mistakes, such as that here. Archiving of Talk is essential. If it is done incorrectly, it can be fixed. History remains for all of it. Nothing is lost. But the goal here is the article, not Talk. I've been distracted elsewhere, or I'd have been more active restraining the particular editor who is tangling with you. Abd (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've change it to medical expert of the CCHR. Always attribute your sources, especially when they hold highly controversial viewpoints. Really this whole exercise is all silly because we have wikilawyering going on here and the apparent purpose is not the betterment of the article but could be to exert control and make every edit I make as difficult as possible.--scuro (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing Susan Greenfield from intro

I removed the following

"The most prominent of these critics is Oxford professor Dr. Susan Greenfield, winner of the yearly Faraday award from the Royal Society, for her contributions to the scientific education of the English. Dr. Greenfield called on ministers to examine how ADHD is diagnosed and treated in the UK."

The reason I did this is because it did not contribute to the content of the opening paragraph other than adding someone's name and achievments. The purpose of the intro is to give an overview of the topic at hand. ADHD controversy goes above and beyond one critic in the UK. Why include this one person and not any of the others? It would be best not to mention anyone specifically in the intro rather than flood the intro with many names. Secondly I have issues with calling her the most prominant ADHD critic. That point is certaintly debateable. She is just one person so giving her such a prominant mention in the beginning may violate the undue weight policy. If we need to make an international section to discuss ADHD by region then someone with more knowledge than I should do it. Sifaka ^talk 22:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I was the person who wrote that section because at the time it was repeatedly implied that critics were a fringe group, or members of the notorious scientology. The prestige of this prominent scientist speaks volumes about how reputable some of the criticism of ADHD is. The deletion is okay because I have now included a section on the media which refers to Dr. Greenfield, and the level of her accomplishments I know that the media can be very irresponsible but we are not talking about the National Enquirer here. These are BBC, The Times, New York Times and PBS. More importantly, the sources I have included have a treasure of links from all sides of the controversy which any person seeking reliable information will appreciate. I hope this section will be guarded by those who have been alerted to the bias that has ruled here. If it is removed for some technicality I think you guys ought to give up any pretence of being interested in having a fair presentation.--Ss06470 (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Critics who deny ADHD's existence are often from fringe groups or religions, that doesn't mean that all of them are. On the other had one can not negate the fact the a good deal of the critics are way out there. There opinion needs to be noted and attributed. They should not receive undue weight and that is why it is refreshing to see Susan Greenfield mentioned. Unfortunately she states nothing controversial in the citation. There are a few good objective critics of ADHD that are properly cited. It would be my pleasure in assisting in the editing and polishing of new material into the article. Perhaps you could lighten up on the constant barrage of name calling and accusations of total bias... which are often seen in your posts. Under such an arrangement we could work together in harmony. I look forward to working in the spirit of wikipedia.--scuro (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over the extent to which ADHD is, or is not a biolgoical illness

I am asking for help on how the following can be included in this article. I think it is coherent, logical and backed by irreproachable references. It also states that this is a minority point of view.

Is ADHD a biological condition?

One of the most controversial issues regarding ADHD is whether it is wholly or even predominantly a biological illness, a defect in the brain. The current predominance of opinion in medicine is that this is the case, but the fact is that the cause of ADHD remains unknown. Examples of this ongoing disagreement are found wherever research will support or not support the biological argument. Thus, there are radically different opinions about whether there is a genetic basis. For example the statement that there is a highly probable link between genetics and ADHDDisorder Nature, Course, Outcomes, and Comorbidity|last=Barkley|first=Russel A.|accessdate=2006-06-26}} Contradicting this is opinion of Dr. Jay Joseph. (THE MISSING GENE Psychiatry, Heredity, and the Fruitless Search for Genes Jay Joseph, Psy.D. Algora Publishing, January, 2006) Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., from Harvard Medical School had this to say "no claim of a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation". (Glenmullin, Joseph (2000). Prozac Backlash. New York: Simon & Schuster, 192-198)

While there have been repeated articles citing physical differences in the brain of those with ADHD most of these have not stood up. Xavier Castellanos MD, then head of ADHD research at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and firmly convinced that ADHD is a biological illness, acknowledged this in an interview with Frontline Castellanos interview. Critics of Dr. Castellanos’ own research have pointed out that the differences he was claiming do exist could have been the result of medication taken. ( He has since been working on eliminating this variable) However, even if differences in the brain will be found, an important issue is that the physical brain can be changed by patterns of behavior. Thus learning Braille causes enlargement of the part of the motor cortex that controls finger movements. [45] After they have passed their licensing exam, London taxi drivers have been found to have a significantly enlarged hippocampus compared to non-taxi drivers[46][47]. Patients abused during their childhood with post traumatic stress disorder will have a flattened out hippocampus. [48] Professional musicians have brains that are different from non-musicians. [49] Monks who meditate show measurable differences in their prefrontal lobes.) [50][51][52]

So diminished concerted effort when confronted with tasks thought to be drudgery ( e.g. homework, paying attention to teachers, and the like) even if not caused by differences in the brain, could have brain changing effects. In “Rethinking ADHD: International Perspectives” (ed Timini,S 2008 Palgrave Macmillan) an alternative paradigm for ADHD argues that, while biological factors may obviously play a large role in difficulties sitting still and/or concentrating on schoolwork in some children, the vast majority of children manifesting this behavior do not have a biological deficit. For a variety of reasons they have failed to integrate into their psychology the ability to work at chores that are expected of them. Their restlessness and daydreaming is similar to the behavior of other, normal children when they are not engaged, and are bored and trapped by circumstances. Characteristically, children with ADHD/ADD have no difficulty concentrating on activities that they find to be interesting, or fun, (for example video games, which require enormous attention skills). When they are taught by a charismatic entertaining teacher, they similarly can concentrate.

I think a section such as this will deal with this issue directly and not create the chaos that has resulted as opposing editors enter and find deleted specific issues that support or deny their argument.--Ss06470 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way I notice that my addition of the word "presumably" neurobehavioral at the beginning of the article has been deleted, an obvious example of this kind of back and forth editing regarding this issue. It should be noted that I was not deleting neurobehavioral just adding a question and this was not tolerated, a perfect example of the absolute refusal to allow for disagreement. Would the person who made that change please explain it--Ss06470 (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are telling a narrative where two forces come in conflict with each other. Yet, when one looks at the major scientific bodies, they all sing the same tune about ADHD. The subjective narrative belongs in the minds of those who have faith in the story which is not rooted in objective evidence. There are individual noteworthy critics who make convincing cases, but in reality they are largely ignored. They have little to no bearing on research because they are not researchers. As such, scientists really don't give a toot about them or their theories. The narrative will continue as others come to believe what is being told but in the labs of the world they are not worrying about Timini, Glenmullen, Joseph, or Baughman.

I'll grant you that brains are changed by the environment they live, in and sometimes the change is remarkable and can look some what like ADHD. Yet a good Psychologist screens for that. They may receive a diagnosis of PTSD if there symptoms are highly significant. Anything that causes significant undue stress on the brain can cause ADHD like symptoms. Yet they have also looked at the angle of what role the environment plays in ADHD and I believe the figure estimated is 20% of all adhd is caused by environment. The rest is attributed to genetics. It is after all a heterogeneous disorder. Finally kids with major attention problems do also have difficulty keeping attention of fun things like video games or an outing at the Zoo. This was the first study I found which supported that theory. http://www.springerlink.com/content/v1362r77v3t12023/ --scuro (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about PTSD. If you read what I wrote it also applies to musicians, meditators etc. Take a look at the PET scan beginning this article. The person(s) with ADHD are not using their brain to attend to an assigned task. If this is the pattern over many years could it change the brain? I don't know but it is very possible. If you read my article my speculation goes something like this, "Besides ADHD diagnosed adolescents, and their friends, who sometimes borrow their meds when they have to do chores that they dread, stimulants (“greenies”), according to David Wells , and more recently Mike Schmidt, have long been part of the professional athletes’ equipment, helping them to step up to the plate with confidence. It changes their state of mind from a passive, reactive, position to a take charge proactive stance. Or as one basketball player put it, "Give me the ball. I can make the shot." This taking charge, "I can do it" feeling, when approaching tasks, is a key element in most people's perception of whether they are up to a challenge, and whether it is “work” or pleasurable. I contend that this is what is happening when stimulants work for ADHD children (and adults) Actually let me quote the paragraph before that which may put it in perspective You will note that I accept that these drugs often work. My patients have told me often enough help helpful they are.

The medical cure for ADHD patients’ inability to confront drudgery is stimulants, which have a long history of working pretty well for this purpose. Most of the drugs work similarly to cocaine. In the 19th century cocaine was the most popular miracle drug in the world, regularly used and extolled by the likes of President McKinley, Queen Victoria, Pope Leo Xlll, Thomas Edison, Robert Lewis Stevenson, Ibsen , Anatole France and a host of other renowned members of society. Sigmund Freud wrote the following about it, "You perceive an increase of self-control and possess more vitality and capacity for work." According to the Sears, Roebuck and Co. Consumers' Guide (1900), their extraordinary Peruvian Wine of Coca "...sustains and refreshes both the body and brain....It may be taken at any time with perfect safety...it has been effectually proven that in the same space of time more than double the amount of work could be undergone when Peruvian Wine of Coca was used, and positively no fatigue experienced.”

After he read this article, my son, who was then at Yale, told me that one afternoon he was complaining about the work he had before him, two finals and three papers that were due. His schoolmate piped in, “I got some Ritaline, want it?” The daughter of a friend said the same thing was going on at McGill. They are not alone. Here is a headline from the NY Times

“Latest Campus High: Illicit use of Prescription Medication, Experts and Students Say”

“Ritalin makes repetitive, boring tasks like cleaning your room seem fun” said Josh Koenig a 20 year old drama major from NYU.

“Katherinen Plyshevsky, 21, a junior from New Milford NJ majoring in marketing at NYU said she used Ritaline obtained from a friend with ADD to get through her midterms “It was actually fun to do the work,” she said."

By the way Freud eventually turned against cocaine when he saw the effect it was having on some of his friends. And Robert Lewis Stephenson who wrote his novels on cocaine, eventully wrote Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde while high on cocaine for 7 days and nights. Stephen King who wrote his novels on stimulants eventually stopped them. He's said (the nurse in Misery who locks up her injured guest represented) his stimulant use. There was no word from the two popes, Tom Edison, President Mckinley and scores of other prominent people who once freely used

So amphetamines and ritaline do improve attention for what I believe are the reasons cited above. This goes for people with ADHD and people without it. By the way, after the steroid scandal in baseball, an enormous number number of athletes who do not want to lose their greenies are now claiming they have ADHD. Drug companies who send out 3-4 mailings a week to doctors offices are intent on making stimulants the 21st century equivalence of cocaine in the 19th century It is great stuff.

One last comment. Obviously, not every kid with ADHD can concentrate on video games but I have been amazed by how often it is the case. Once again from my article regarding this aspect of the issue I treated a teen-ager who told me that he could not read without his medication. His eyes glazed over, he could go over a page a hundred times and nothing would be absorbed. During summer vacation he stopped his meds, except when he had to read something for school. I asked if he ever read anything else, something not required for school. He told me he didn’t but then remembered one exception. He loved mountain biking. Each month when his mountain biking magazine arrived he tore through it, reading every word, cover to cover. He did not require medication to do this--Ss06470 (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the most controversial issues regarding ADHD is whether it is wholly or even predominantly a biological illness, a defect in the brain. The current predominance of opinion in medicine is that this is the case, but the fact is that the cause of ADHD remains unknown. Examples of this ongoing disagreement are found wherever research will support or not support the biological argument. Thus, there are radically different opinions about whether there is a genetic basis. For example the statement that there is a highly probable link between genetics and ADHDDisorder Nature, Course, Outcomes, and Comorbidity|last=Barkley|first=Russel A.|accessdate=2006-06-26}} Contradicting this is opinion of Dr. Jay Joseph. (THE MISSING GENE Psychiatry, Heredity, and the Fruitless Search for Genes Jay Joseph, Psy.D. Algora Publishing, January, 2006) Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., from Harvard Medical School had this to say "no claim of a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation". (Glenmullin, Joseph (2000). Prozac Backlash. New York: Simon & Schuster, 192-198) There is already a section on genetics and ADHD which covers this.

While there have been repeated articles citing physical differences in the brain of those with ADHD most of these have not stood up. Xavier Castellanos MD, then head of ADHD research at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and firmly convinced that ADHD is a biological illness, acknowledged this in an interview with Frontline Castellanos interview. Critics of Dr. Castellanos’ own research have pointed out that the differences he was claiming do exist could have been the result of medication taken. ( He has since been working on eliminating this variable) However, even if differences in the brain will be found, an important issue is that the physical brain can be changed by patterns of behavior. Thus learning Braille causes enlargement of the part of the motor cortex that controls finger movements. [53] After they have passed their licensing exam, London taxi drivers have been found to have a significantly enlarged hippocampus compared to non-taxi drivers[54][55]. Patients abused during their childhood with post traumatic stress disorder will have a flattened out hippocampus. [56] Professional musicians have brains that are different from non-musicians. [57] Monks who meditate show measurable differences in their prefrontal lobes.) [58][59][60] So diminished concerted effort when confronted with tasks thought to be drudgery ( e.g. homework, paying attention to teachers, and the like) even if not caused by differences in the brain, could have brain changing effects.

In “Rethinking ADHD: International Perspectives” (ed Timini,S 2008 Palgrave Macmillan) an alternative paradigm for ADHD argues that, while biological factors may obviously play a large role in difficulties sitting still and/or concentrating on schoolwork in some children, the vast majority of children manifesting this behavior do not have a biological deficit. For a variety of reasons they have failed to integrate into their psychology the ability to work at chores that are expected of them. Their restlessness and daydreaming is similar to the behavior of other, normal children when they are not engaged, and are bored and trapped by circumstances. Characteristically, children with ADHD/ADD have no difficulty concentrating on activities that they find to be interesting, or fun, (for example video games, which require enormous attention skills). When they are taught by a charismatic entertaining teacher, they similarly can concentrate. It may be valuable to create a separate section about this because although similar points are made in the alternative views section, they are pretty disorganized and less clear. A section like this would enable the "neurodiversity" and "ADHD within the normal range of human behavior" facet of the debate to be addressed. The typical response of mainstream scientists is that the behaviors associated with ADHD are fundamentally different. Most ordinary people exhibit some of these behaviors but not to the point where they seriously interfere with the person's work, relationships, or studies or cause anxiety or depression. I will have to discuss this later since I have to go somewhere. Will address this soon. Sifaka ^talk 21:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that sudden cut off, I had to take off quickly and decided to post my thoughts anyway. I fixed the formatting. I still have some more to say regarding the second and third paragraph but I will have to do so at a later time due to time constraints on my end. I'm sorry about that. Sifaka ^talk 05:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Presumably" in front of Neurobehavioral

I deleted the "presumably" in front of "neurobehavioral". The reason I did it is because it was the lead-in sentence describing what ADHD is and needed to concur with to the majority viewpoint per Wikipedia policy. When you say, "a perfect example of the absolute refusal to allow for disagreement" you have to remember that this article is not a platform for debate about the subject at hand. The purpose of this article is to present these debates in an encyclopedic context while being brutally honest about the merits of each side of the argument. This in practice means giving the most "weight" to the viewpoint accepted by the majority, and proportionally less weight to minority viewpoints. This is perhaps summed up well with this quote.

"The Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must 'give equal validity' to minority views."

By simple virtue of their numbers, the majority viewpoint and the research they support gets the lion's share of the "weight." For the minority viewpoint which doubts the evidence or methods or whatever else, it will wind up seeming inherently "unfair." The problem is that the vast majority of relevant scientists and experts concur that ADHD is neurobehavioral and there is a large body of evidence which this same majority accepts as extremely compelling and rejects theories to the contrary which the minority viewpoint may put forth. On Wikipedia and elsewhere, one must reasonably expect that the minority viewpoint is going to be given the respect and weight of a minority viewpoint.

This may seem disheartening because minority viewpoints seemed locked in by a catch 22 and can't compete well with majority viewpoints. All you can do is hope that the "system" in place is a good system, so that if minority viewpoints gather together strong well validated evidence in support of a theory which can not be reconciled with the current majority theory, the minority side will attract more people and eventually become the majority viewpoint themselves. If you look at the development of science, you can see a clear trend for the truth winning out in time, even if it takes a century or so. So if a minority viewpoint has within it that pure grain of truth, take heart, because the majority will get around to the conclusion eventually. Sifaka ^talk 09:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Media Coverage of the ADHD Controversy should not be a list of everyone who wrote an article related to ADHD controversy.

Right off the bat I want to make it clear that I do support the inclusion of an well written Media Coverage of the ADHD Controversy section. My reason for removing a large portion of the section is that it appeared to be becoming a laundry list of various people's articles and programs with no regard to notability or impact. If we are going to mention specific programs or articles, we must also keep in line with appropriate weight. Any article or program we mention needs to have demonstrated significant penetration and influence on public and scientific thought. While this is fairly subjective, a good way to judge this may be to look at the magnitude of the response to the article/program in question and its influence on later works. Sifaka ^talk 20:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, here is a list of all the various articles that were mentioned already.

1. Terence Kealey a clinical biochemist and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham wrote a highly critical article for The Times [61]
2. A BBC Panorama programme which highlighted US research . (The Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD by the University of Buffalo showing treatment results of 600) suggesting drugs are no better than therapy for ADHD in the long-term.
3. Dr. Susan Greenfield took a strong stand about the controversy regarding ADHD in the House of Lords. [62].
4. PBS' Frontline ran a story Medicating Kids which has a large selection of interviews with important representatives of the various points of view.
5. Included in the above PBS' Frontline is an interview with Xavier Castellanos then head of ADHD research at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) which contradicts many statements made on this page about what we know and don't know about the biology of ADHD.[63].
6. Frontline did a second program about the controversies in the widespread diagnosis of children The Medicated Child
7. Benedict Carey has written a number of critical articles in the New York Times on the practice of psychiatry, especially with children diagnosed with bipolar disorder and/or ADHD, for example, Parenting as Therapy for Child's Mental Disorders or What’s Wrong With a Child? Psychiatrists Often Disagree, Debate Over Children and Psychiatric Drugs

Well number 3 is itself justification for inclusion of number 2, but I don't think it should be counted as separate coverage, but more that The explanation of the panorama program should mention that it lead to debate in the house of lords. Restepc (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If I am right, this is the transcript of the issue that was brought up. It could be worth an explicit mention considering this seems to be an excellent example of how the controversy issues have been brought to the attention of lawmakers in the UK to call for more in depth research. It would be nice if anyone here knows of any various reactions to this request for examination, both from the UK and stateside (if possible) that I could look through. On an unrelated note I think we should keep the listing of accolades of the neuroscientist and independent peer Baroness Dr. Susan Greenfield to a relative minimum. Her title alone just about covers it... Sifaka ^talk 05:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am astounded that this has been done in the first place but that it was done without a single criticism of the action is even more amazing This is not a random list but the selection of coverage from some of our finest journalist sources: The Times, PBS' Frontline, The New York Times and the BBC. The Frontline links, in particular, have one of the richest sources of links for this topic I have seen covering interviews with most of the major voices in this controversy. If other editors are not going to object to the absurd reasoning used to cut these articles out I simply do not know what to say. Your demand for proof of impact is absurd. Did you take a look at the link provided there before you took it out. Were you willing to have a discussion before you did so? ABD if you are reading this, are you going to let this be done? The fact that you are a sophomore in college and you do something like this speaks volumes about your thoughtfulness.--Ss06470 (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Sifaka's reasoning here. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll bet you do Ned. You've popped up here before in exactly this situation in the past, reliably aligned whenever these issues appear. So you feel simply mentioning Dr. Susan Greenfield by her name does justice to the prestige of this Oxford Professor who was chosen by the Royal Society to be the recipient of the yearly Faraday award. She was appointed to the House of Lord by the Prime Minister because of her scientific accomplishments. You feel that Frontline is just another trivial bit of journalism and the links in those two shows to the NIMH, consensus statement, the Surgeon General's Report, the interview with the head of ADHD research at the NIMH etc etc would not be a valuable addition to this site, helping readers to gain an enourmous amount of knowledge about ADHD controversies with great ease. You don't think that somehow all of the nut critics remain prominently displayed on this page, thereby giving the impression that critics are "antipsychiatrists" scientologists etc etc rather than some thoughtful people (some with great status) who are alarmed by what is going on in child psychiatry. Great Ned. You belong here guarding this site from the likes of me and them. Oh is that insulting? My apologies. Where are you Scuro? Or have you taken on a few user names Whoops My apologies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss06470 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC) I indented this paragraph 05:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I only mean that I agree with Sifaka's reasoning, which considers undue weight. These sections are supposed to give examples of the media coverage, not list every single time it has happened. You're welcome to make arguments for why we should include these specific ones, but don't make personal attacks at anyone you feel is not supporting your view. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC) I indented this paragraph 05:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the edit because I was being Bold. I haven't had much of a problem with just making edits. Usually just going ahead and doing something is the best way to get people a discussion going. I made this edit in good faith in light of the Wikipedia policy WP:Not: Wikipedia is not a laundry list of articles/links. The "demand" for the proof of impact is absolutely necessary or else this section will simply accumulate descriptions of every article/program written about ADHD controversy and degenerate into unreadability. My suggestion on improving this section is to discuss the articles and their collective impact in general, referencing them of course, to avoid creating a "laundry list." In all likelihood going about it this way will produce a more readable end result. Should any of these articles prove especially noteworthy (read notable beyond the others) then it should be given an exclusive mention. Sifaka ^talk 05:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate being Bold, and certainly Sifaka had the right to do that; however, to replace a whole section of sourced text with a summary that isn't sourced and is very generalized, isn't proper. If there is too much there, then we should discuss what to keep. Taking it all out, no. It's a big step from "We shouldn't list every time it happened," to arbitrarily taking it all out. That section was not long, in fact, and was not a list of every time "it happened." Taking it out was provocative, even if not so intended, so, while I regret Ss06470's ABF comments -- he should stop that -- I can understand them. He is frustrated with a long history of what indeed looks to me like suppression of critical points of view and evidence for the same. I reverted the change.--Abd (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Abd and Ss06470 for the criticism; it will help me be a better contributor. I will be more careful about being excessively bold in the future and try to seek consensus first like Ss06470 did up above. I didn't intend my edit to be provocative. I would have normally copy edited the section, but I have been under time constraints recently and just went ahead and deleted it. It was a little too shortsighted of me and I should have simply brought it to the attention of the talk page and waited until I had the time to copy edit it appropriately. Thanks again, Sifaka ^talk 05:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC).

Thank you, Thank you Thank you Abd. Truly my apologies to Sifaka who may not have realized she stepped into a hornets nest. I hope she has learned something here, but I still don't understand her reasoning, unless she did not actually use the links provided and understand what she was eliminating. Once again, it is a very rich source of information and is very much on topic. A reader of this article who goes to it will find his time profitably spent. It is 10 steps above the level of chaos that this page represents. As for my fury. I took the trouble to organize it and write it ( which took a few hours.) It has many points of view which are opposed to my own which is fine with me. The key issue is that there is a reasonable and coherent presentation of the controversial nature of ADHD (presumably the point of this article.) Frankly, I would not encourage this, but I would have no objection if editors with a differenet point of view wanted to add some articles or programs, or press releases from mainstream sources, academies etc that totally contradict the content, as long as the current media sources remain there The paragraph begins with a reference to extreme points of view, so in fairness a few articles blasting opponents would be just fine. Then let the interested reader decide.

On a different topic, my presentation of one of the key issues, the nurture/nature controversy about ADHD (historically an ongoing debate about almost every diagnostic entity) I would like to post this thing about biology in a way that won't get it deleted. I understand where the current thinking is. I have been in practice 37 years and have seen my field change from Freudian orthodoxy (and similar narrow mindedness towards the nature people) to the current state where biological people own the journals, the NIMH, and academic departments. I have no doubt the pendulum will eventually swing back again towards the nurture point of view since this kind of thing has been going on and on. Psychiatry was ruled by the nosological point of view when Freud appeared, then he took the crown, now the those with the same arguments freud faced are back in power. Both camps have been intolerant and both have exaggerated what is "known" and is not known. In this case the biological argument has been greatly strengthened by pharmaceutical companies for whom literally billions of dollars ate at stake. They have turned the whole thing into more of a farce than usual.

I never thought in my lifetime academicians could be so corrupted, especially academicians at prestigious top line universities, receiving enormous amounts of money from drug companies. ( I guess that is my special interest because I began in academia, until I realized I could actually have more intellectual freedom outside of it. I didn't realize, however, how much it would close off access, although I am not sure if I remained whether I could have had a decent career without spouting the party line, and thus access would still be denied. I posted elsewhere how academicians have whispered to me that they agreed with me and admired my courage, but as I noted there was no courage involved for me. In private practice I do not have a career to protect.

But returning to the main point. The biological point of view has been dominant since the 1980s were declared "The Decade of the Brain" by President Bush and Congress. The subsequent research has been okay, and some of the medications that have appeared have been great. However, to quote myself from the introduction to my ADHD article, this "article's main point of view is that bad science, science totally lacking science's clarity about what is known and not known, is worse than sensible, if imprecise, literary speculations and reasoning." All of this talk about experts and academies taking this position or that does not change the basic facts. We know surprisingly little in a scientific way (see the interview of the head of research at the NIMH at the Fronline link) This is also the opinion of the discover of Prozac. (I can provide the source if any one here wants it) It is the view of all real scientists as opposed to those who use the slogans and prestige (and misapplied technological fragmets of research) of science as a weapon to silence controversy. That this position now dominates the field is amazing, but I remember, when I dared to question something Freud claimed and was treated by my medical school professor as a wise guy heretic. Now merely uttering a Freudian position is treated with derision.

I would like to have more of my point of view represented here. My article is my best shot at trying to understand what is going on with ADHD but that has been closed off, even on the controvery page, because it is not an expert point of view, it has no statistical validity. As Scuro puts it I am just another guy with an opinion so why should it be represented even if it may clarify some key issues, or at least, present a reasonable attempt to make sense of the illness.--Ss06470 (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

ADHD as a social construct

As this section currently has a unverified claims/original research tag on it, I'm thinking it needs major editing.

Hopefully we can achieve consensus here as to how it should read, and then switch them over and remove the tag.

To start with the first paragraph, as of 04/03/08 it reads

"Psychiatrists Peter Breggin and Sami Timimi oppose pathologizing the symptoms of ADHD. Sami Timimi, who is a NHS child and adolescent psychiatrist, explains ADHD as a social construct rather than an objective 'disorder'.[40]. Timimi argues that right wing capitalist ideology[citation needed] has created stress on families which in turn suggests environmental causes for children expressing the symptoms of ADHD.[41] Parents who feel they have failed in their parenting responsibilities can use the ADHD label to absolve guilt and self-blame. However, Timimi's views are controversial. For example, in Naughty Boys: Anti-Social Behaviour, ADHD, and the Role of Culture, Timimi (2005) posits that Western cultural beliefs should favor[citation needed] boys over girls as a means to reducing psychopathology in males.[42] A common argument against the medical model of ADHD asserts that while the traits that define ADHD exist and may be measurable, they lie within the spectrum of normal healthy human behaviour and are not dysfunctional. However, by definition, in order to diagnosed with a mental disorder, symptoms must be demonstrated as maladaptive."

perhaps it could instead read

"Psychiatrists Peter Breggin and Sami Timimi oppose pathologizing the symptoms of ADHD. Sami Timimi, who is a NHS child and adolescent psychiatrist, explains ADHD as a social construct rather than an objective 'disorder'.[40]. Timimi argues that western society creates stress on families which in turn suggests environmental causes for children expressing the symptoms of ADHD.[41] Parents who feel they have failed in their parenting responsibilities can use the ADHD label to absolve guilt and self-blame. A common argument against the medical model of ADHD asserts that while the traits that define ADHD exist and may be measurable, they lie within the spectrum of normal healthy human behaviour and are not dysfunctional. However, by definition, in order to diagnosed with a mental disorder, symptoms must be demonstrated as maladaptive."

As the 'right-wing capitalist' part has been challenged, a change to 'western society' would make much the same point and is much more easily cited, and I suggest removing the sentence about his views on reducing psychopathology in males as irrelevant to the subject at hand, and possibly prejudicial.

As always, comments welcome, indeed even wanted. Restepc (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor inserted,[64] today, a phrase, Contrary to the widely held belief that ADHD is a true disorder, Psychiatrists Peter Breggin and Sami Timimi oppose pathologizing the symptoms of ADHD. The same editor then inserted a qualifying phrase into the language shown above, which was technically correct though possibly unnecessary: They believe that parents who feel they have failed in their parenting responsibilities can use the ADHD label to absolve guilt and self-blame. Another editor reverted that out. This reversion was proper. The description of Breggin and Timimi stands on its own as NPOV, and an introduction that claims that this opposition is contrary to the "widely held belief" is unsourced synthesis. There is no intrinsic opposition. For starters, "true disorder" is undefined. ADHD is a diagnostic category, and it is associated with differences in these children from "normal." The diagnostic category is based, mostly, on identifiable disordered behavior, that is, impairments in socially-desirable function (and often desirable from the point of view of the patient as well). Therefore, that ADHD is a "true disorder," in a basic sense, is a tautology, it conveys no meaning beyond "ADHD is a disorder." The meaning of this is another matter.

It is claimed, and the claim seems incontrovertible from twin studies, that ADHD has some genetic basis. If so, then it is a genetic variation. It's a basic principle that common genetic variations, and ADHD is common, carry with them some function, they are not pure disorders. As an example, Sickle-cell anemia is a genetic disease that is functional in certain environments, conveying resistance to malaria. I'm suspicious of the comment attributed to Breggin and Timimi, the significance of it is unclear, but I haven't looked at the source, I'm writing here on general principles of WP:NPOV and a knowledge of ADHD.--Abd (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The section creates undue weight. If you don't like the wording, improve upon it as you have often extolled other editors to do. Also Breggin and I suspect Timimi are more noteworthy for their anti-psychiatric viewpoints then they are for being Psychiatrists. To simply state that they are Psychiatrists is misleading.--scuro (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone believe that Abd is arguing that the mainstream viewpoint is that ADHD is a social construct? This borders on harassment...either that or it speaks to a high degree of ignorance. Does he truly know no better?...and if so why is he editing on this page. Abd, you need not "restrain" me. That goes against Wiki policy and probably is one of the reasons your application for administration failed. That same issue may come up again in a future application. May I suggest that you treat your fellow editors with respect which means that you don't try to control them by reverting their edits.--scuro (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, not Abd, the article already makes it perfectly clear that these are alternative viewpoints, the rules about not presenting viewpoints in disparaging tones still apply. Restepc (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Abd did revert the second time. I respectively disagree with you and will be adding a tag to the section.--scuro (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please clearly outline what specific phrases (or whatever) you believe are unbalanced so we can fix them :) Restepc (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell it's one sided...this is neither minority or majority viewpoint and there is no context given to the reader to indicate this. There are other things wrong with this section and I have mentioned some of the problems. For the time being I'll leave it at that until I see that my edits are treated with good faith, and an editor who seems to be on a mission like Robocop allows any one of my edits to stand freely on this page, even if it is only the addition of a tag.--scuro (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Material moved to new article entitled, Social construct theory of ADHD. That article could use a clean up if you have time to spare. :)--scuro (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Refs removed that do not support claims

I've restored the dietary ref and cleaned up that section, and taken out refs that do not support claims made in the copy. They were:
note 23: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17048717?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1

As it said nothing conclusive.

note 24: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/adhd/complete-publication.shtml

Where’s the relevant quote??

and note 25: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17542236

Abstract detailing intentions but not conclusions.

The ref restored was of an article not online, which is why I quote from the hard copy I have sourced. And I've removed a line that, because this section was moved, is no longer relevant to this section. regards, Mimi ^(yack) 14:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

the coatrack issue

When will this article shape up? There are so many constant additions of poor quality that the editing task seems endless. Can we even get an intro that is simply a proper synopsis of the whole article instead of a coatrack of issues, some of which should be explored in other articles? Why are editors constantly trying to add the kitchen sink into the mix instead of simply focusing on the known, if any, truly controversial (minority and majority opinion), and properly citable issues related to ADHD?--scuro (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• 1 Skepticism towards diagnosis -(non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 1.1 Sub-clinical ADHD -(really don't know what this is doing in the article and how it is controversial)
• 2 ADHD as a Biological Illness -(non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 2.1 Genetic basis of ADHD -(non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 2.2 Dietary Link to ADHD -(accepted as true...very poor or toxic diet can cause ADHD symptoms ->non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 3 Concerns about medication -(minority controversial issue)
• 3.1 Over-prescription -(questionable)
• 3.2 Drug safety -(non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 4 Concerns about the impact of labeling -(non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 5 Media Coverage of the ADHD Controversy -(non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 6 Alternative theories concerning ADHD -(should have it's own article ->non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 6.1 ADHD as a social construct -(should have it's own article ->non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 6.2 ADHD as a variably adaptive or maladaptive cognitive trait -(should have it's own article ->non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 7 Clinical Research Involving Children -(probably controversial)
• 8 Scientology/ antipsychiatry controversy -(controversial)

It's my opinion that in looking at the major subheadings, a large majority of the subsections are not controversial. Looking at the history, the article has always been a coatrack and it still needs a major overhaul. Then we need editors who vigilantly block any attempt to add new coatrack material. The intro is not a reflection of the article and has info that can be found nowhere else in the article. It is not a summation. Basically we editors who are willing to work together or this article is fated to be doomed forever.--scuro (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the sections you labeled as 'non controversial' are clearly controversial in my opinion, and I strongly suspect the editor consensus will agree with me. I'm afraid I'm too busy/ill to put any work into this article at the moment, but will try to continue to monitor and edit edits. Also, describing Baroness Greenfield as a Baroness is clearly not a peacock term, and neither are the others, I've reverted those changes, if you still object I suggest you consult the wiki advice article on peacock terms. I can see your point about 'strongly' in the intro, I'll try to think of something better when my head doesn't feel like there's a Frenchman living in it. Restepc (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy so votes on what is controversial really isn't going to cut it. The issue simply stated is that anyone can call something controversial. Often fringe opinion labels something as controversial when minority or majority opinion clearly doesn't see it as controversial. For instance looking at the first heading, fringe opinion sees great skepticism towards the diagnosis but scientists and national research bodies don't. You may get the odd Dr. or Psychiatrist who has written broadly on the topic...like Sobo, perhaps even written a book, but there is ZERO interest in their ideas within academic circles because they don't do research and have zilich relevance to the current academic understanding of an issue. A solution here may be to create another article called, Fringe Ideas about ADHD.

So what we have is a collection bin of ideas most of which are neither minority or majority opinion, or unrelated to controversy because there is no argument about the issue. That is why the coatrack tag has been added.

I remember reading somewhere in Wikipedia that "puffery" should be avoided. We don't need to know what title they hold at such and such university, won which medal, etc. Their ideas and the importance of the idea should stand by themselves and if puffery is needed to make them sound important the ideas may have little merit. Certainly an encyclopedia wouldn't get into that type of "puffery" when citing the opinion of someone. If you really feel it must stay I'm not going to remove the "puffery" until I find the actual policy.--scuro (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Scuro, Hi. Restepc is correct about the title of Baroness, I believe - Susan Greenfield is a life peer and as such can use her extensive knowledge to direct her opinions, and votes, on law making in the UK. The title of Baroness therefore is not puffery, as such, but an indication that she is a member of the House of Lords and therefore part of the process of law making in Great Britain. She was given the title because she was already important. Also, the controversy connected with diet and ADHD is that "the causes of hyperactivity due to external factors, such as diet, were being ignored". Regards, Mimi ^(yack) 22:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If it were just the title I wouldn't take issue with it, if that is the policy of Wiki. I believe I remember seeing the title Dr. removed because this goes against wiki policy. Perhaps an editor can enlighten us on this issue. We are told she is leading neuro-scientist and that she won a medal...the editor is indeed puffing her up and you wouldn't see that in an encyclopedia. No big deal though...it's not going to make or break the article. With regards to diet, it is not controversial that very poor diet or toxins can cause ADHD symptoms. This was never ignored and never in question, simply the research focus was on the main causes of ADHD which has been attributed to genetic causes. Just like inattentive ADHD gets little attention compared to hyperactive and combined ADHD. Now when someone states that there is no cause for ADHD because the disorder doesn't exist...that is fringe opinion and goes to the heart of the coatrack tag. I could remove fringe opinion from this article but would want support to do so. Some editors have gotten "their knickers in a knot" with my edits and have tried to control very basic and obviously good edits that I make. --scuro (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As you mentioned peacocks, I went to the wikipedia advice page with that title and reverted your edit in line with what I read there. If there is a separate article on puffery I haven't seen it....but I find new wikipedia policies all the time so do direct me to it if ya find it :)

In my opinion the titles Dr and Baroness are obviously not puffery, those are the peoples actual titles, and the information that she is a leading neuro-scientist I think you'll agree is highly relevant to the topic at hand. The Faraday Medal is certainly something that would be mentioned in an encyclopedic entry on Baroness Greenfield, but on reflection it isn't really relevant to her opinions in this specific field, and I have no objections if you'd like to remove it. Restepc (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are bigger fish to fry. If several editors are working together for the betterment of the article...really that is a much bigger issue/accomplishment then reaching consensus on accolades. Can you see the difference between majority, minority, and fringe opinion in this article? Can you also see that some parts of this article are not controversial like diet?--scuro (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe my contribution regarding diet should remain unchanged in the article - it is sourced and is relevant. I have shown that I am more than happy to stand back but removing this contribution would be wrong - diet IS a factor and my sources show that it IS being ignored in treatment and diagnosis. There IS controversy over this in the UK and I have shown this in the sources chosen. Mimi ^(yack) 17:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to move slowly and with consensus....one section at a time. Looking at the section that you contributed to, I'd opinion that these ideas could probably be classified as minority opinion. I have read studies on red food dye, and how certain nutrients improve adhd symptoms and how toxins cause ADHD symptoms. Each child is different and responds uniquely to their environment. I also know of a child who improved significantly because of diet change. Is diet the major cause of ADHD? I think majority opinion would say no but I think a case for minority opinion that diet influences some of the ADHD seen should be made. In other words these ideas should be transfered to the main page. There has been so many problems on this page, more then I can remember for any other page, that I'd like to review each section, one section at time and do it right. I'd like to attempt consensus...to make change together.--scuro (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In looking at the article and potential areas that may not meet the criteria for inclusion into this article, should a new article(s) be created with the deleted material? For instance an article entitled something like, "The social construct theory of ADHD", could capture a lot of the material.--scuro (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Without further input from other editors, the material in the Social Construct section of the article, plus other material from this article, will be used to form the new article.--scuro (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

--Ss06470 (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Here we go again. "Zero interest in their ideas" I am not going to once again list the support I have received from academia for my ideas. Since you seem to totally ignore what I have listed. But being the featured speaker at Grand Rounds in the Psychiatry Dept at the University of Alabama is not zero, and Bruce Charlton's (editor of Medical Hypotheses) comment specifically about my ADHD article, not to mention Anna Freud's references to my work (some feel she was the most prominent child analysts in the 20th century etc etc is hardly zero. There is no question my ideas are not the ideas of mainstream psychiatry. I am challenging many of those ideas but to say they have zero interest is typical of you Scuro. (I suppose that is an insult to you according to the rules) but your comment about zero interest is not? The reason I made a point of Oxford professor Dr. Greenfield's selection for the Faraday award and explained what it is )is that it places her alarm over ADHD in proper perspective. She is a baroness only because the Prime Minister appointed her to the House of Lords because of her scientific prominence. I did not include baroness becasue it counts for nothing in scientific argument whereas her scientific prominence is of great importance. Including it is not puffery. It is an attempt to counteract Scuro's usual "critics are inconsequential or Breggin nuts" He is at it again here. Scuro there is controversy about this illness whether you and the mainstream people are willing to accept it (My apologies I may have inadvertently changed text below-don't know how to fix it) The next paragraph is typical of his attitude (which then leads to demolishing content in the article To quote "So what we have is a collection bin of ideas most of which are neither minority or majority opinion, or unrelated to controversy because there is no argument about the issue. That is why the coatrack tag has been added."--Ss06470 (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind Ss but I moved your post to it's proper chronological position. It is generally considered rude to cut another editor's post in half, in talk. Apologies for the alteration but hopefully the edit will add clarity to this discussion and help draw other editors in.

Ss, the issue is this. While folks like yourself and others have written a great deal on ADHD, you are not experts with regard to the validity of ADHD. I am assuming you do no scientific research and I am also assuming you are not really qualified to interpret scientific research. Perhaps I am wrong and you could post your links to papers you have written in scientific journals. If the passage is about the validity of the disorder then you or other non-experts on this topic really would be considered fringe viewpoint. You are neither part of the majority viewpoint in that field or the minority viewpoint on this issue. This is not at all true for other passages of the article where the topic speaks specifically to your expertise, then you would be majority viewpoint or minority viewpoint. Think about it, should Wikipedia really rely on your opinion on things like brain imagining technology? Support that you receive from other experts doesn't mean a lot on Wikipedia unless it citable. Better would be to ask one of these experts if they have published their views and then use it to support the idea that you want in the article. Do you see the point I am driving at? If we can agree here, that is progress.

I'd also ask you very kindly not to try and characterize me or the motivations of my past or present behaviour. For an imaginary example...hopefully you can see how an editor who wrote this about another editor, "stop trying to control everyone in talk", would not be furthering the article. "Focus on content and not the contributor".--scuro (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Scuro, It turns out that my knowledge of brain imaging technology is sufficient to understand and interpret the meaning of a good deal of brain image technology. It doesn't take expertise to do this, merely medical competence Your editors often seem to entirely get it wrong (for instance focusing on differing glucose metabolism in different parts of the brain rather than understanding that the glucose merely represents which parts of the brain are being used (in response to the assigned task.) This confusion is what I would expect given that your editors are totally untrained in the meaning of most of the material they edit. My blurb describing the meaning of the pictures of the brain beginning this article is highly relevant. It didn't take an expert to interpret what was going on. Merely a logical presentation of the facts. I can't tell you how often those pictures have been used to indiscrimately "prove" ADHD must be biological. How else could the brains look so different? Easy, as the blurb explains.

As for being part of the minority viewpoint rather than counting for zero why is my ADHD article to be included in Rethinking ADHD:International Perspectives [65] You might be interested to know that the publisher Palgrave Macmillan "is a global academic publisher serving learning and scholarship in higher education and professional markets." Naturally you will totally ignore that, but at least you haven't taken out the many many prestigious critics now on the site with your usual "They are antipsychiatrists or work for the Scientologists." I still think the fact that Oxford professor Dr Greenfield is the recipient of the Faraday award is highly relevant (rather than the fact that she is a baroness) since this is one of the most prestigious scientific awards given in England to a scientist. It points to non fringe oppostion to the viewpoint of the "experts" that you seem to have made sacrosanct. - - This is it for me for a while. I'll be back though if and when the usual shennanigans take place, the thought police getting rid of important content that points to real controversy about the subject of ADHD. I wonder what justifications will be given the next time - --Ss06470 (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I think my knowledge "is sufficient to understand and interpret the meaning" of many things related to ADHD. That doesn't mean I consider myself an expert on much related to ADHD. Nor would I try to cite my ideas on the validity of ADHD. Simply, I don't have the recognized expertise in that field and it appears neither do you. What my background allows me to do is to know where to look for the proper citations and also how to find information quickly. I'm picturing you are in the same boat, so finding credible expert opinion that supports your views on the validity of the disorder should be a relatively easy task for you. More on Wiki standards for expertise here ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Expertise

By the way the brain image blurb is lacking a citation, could you provide a good citation from an expert in the field that supports the caption under the image. Could you ALSO please...please...please, not continually stoop to the lowest common dominator's of persuasion such as strawman, false association, putting words in people's mouths, and libel. Really if you are a Doctor, the behaviour is far beneath your calling and against wiki policy. Your continued actions in this regard will result in further administrative action.--scuro (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

coatrack-Skepticism towards diagnosis

first section I don't believe that Kauffman believes what is stated in the intro. Compare, "have argued that this increase is due to the ADHD diagnostic criteria being sufficiently general or vague to allow virtually anybody with persistent unwanted behaviors to be classified as having ADHD of one type or another, and that contrary to the mainstream scientific consensus,[14][15] the symptoms are not supported by sufficient empirical data.[16]"

...to this statement,

"The most common reason that children are referred to child-guidance clinics is for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). ADHD is a behavioral disorder with a strong hereditary component, which likely results from neurological dysfunction. According to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), there are three diagnostic categories of ADHD: (1) ADHD, Predominantly Inattentive Type; (2) ADHD, Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Type; and (3) ADHD, Combined Type. ADHD often occurs simultaneously with other behavioral and learning problems, such as learning disabilities, emotional or behavioral disabilities, or Tourette's syndrome.

A 1998 study by Russell A. Barkley stated that ADHD is a deficit in behavior inhibition, which sets the stage for problems in regulating behavior. Students with ADHD may experience problems in working memory (remembering things while performing other cognitive operations), delayed inner speech (self-talk that allows people to solve problems), problems controlling emotions and arousal, and difficulty analyzing problems and communicating solutions to others. Hence, students with ADHD may find it difficult to stay focused on tasks such as schoolwork–tasks that require sustained attention and concentration, yet are not intrinsically interesting. In addition, the majority of individuals with ADHD experience significant problems in peer relations and demonstrate a higher incidence of substance abuse than that of the general population.

Although professionals did not recognize ADHD as a diagnostic category until the 1980s, evidence of the disorder dates from the beginning of the twentieth century. The physician George F. Still is credited with being one of the first authors to bring those with "defective moral control" to the attention of the medical profession in 1902. In the 1930s and 1940s Heinz Werner and Alfred Strauss were able to identify children who were hyperactive and distractible–children who exhibited the Strauss syndrome. Later, in the middle of the twentieth century, the term minimal brain injury was used to refer to children of normal intelligence who were inattentive, impulsive, and/or hyperactive. This term fell out of favor and was replaced by hyperactive child syndrome. Professionals eventually rejected this term, as inattention, not hyperactivity, was recognized as the major behavior problem associated with the disorder.

Students with ADHD are eligible for special education services under the category "other health impaired (OHI)." This category has dramatically increased in size; however, the number of students served in this category remains well below the estimated prevalence rate of 3 to 5 percent of the school-age population. From discrepancies such as this, researchers have estimated that fewer than half of all students with ADHD are receiving special education services.

As Barkley noted in his 1998 study, the effective diagnosis of ADHD requires a medical exam, a clinical interview, and teacher and parent rating scales. During the medical exam the physician must rule out other possible causes of the behavior problem, and through the clinical interview, the clinician obtains information from both parents and child about the child's physical and psychological characteristics. Finally, parents, teachers, and in some cases children themselves, complete behavioral rating scales, such as the Connors scales and the ADHD Rating Scale–IV in order to quantify observed behavior patterns.

Frequently students with ADHD are treated with psychostimulants, such as methylphenidate (Ritalin), which stimulate areas of the brain responsible for inhibition. Despite some negative publicity in the media, most authorities in the area of ADHD are in favor of Ritalin's use. In addition to medication, students with ADHD also benefit from carefully designed educational programming. In the early 1960s William Cruickshank was one of the first to establish an educational program for students who would meet what has become the criteria for ADHD. This program, proposing a degree of classroom structure rarely seen in the early twenty-first century, advocated: (1) a reduction of stimuli irrelevant to learning and enhancement of material important for learning and (2) a structured program with a strong emphasis on teacher direction. In addition to educational programs that emphasize and provide structure, a 1997 study by Robert H. Horner and Edward G. Carr indicated that students with ADHD benefited from instructional approaches examining the consequences, antecedents, and setting events that maintain inappropriate behaviors. Other researchers' findings indicated that they also profited from behavior management systems in which the student with ADHD learns to monitor his or her own behavior. These strategies, although effective, are not generally powerful enough to completely remedy the symptoms of children with ADHD. The majority of children diagnosed with ADHD continue to demonstrate symptoms in adulthood."

The Wiki passage seems to be paraphrased and not truly stating what he believes or he has changed his opinion over time. Regardless, Kauffman is neither a minority or majority expert on the validity of the diagnosis. If this article is to ever be anything but a coatrack, then it should focus on the controversies of ADHD that reach the standard of minority or majority opinion. Otherwise the article title should be changed to Fringe Theories on ADHD. I'd suggest the whole first paragraph should be deleted. --scuro (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Material moved to new article entitled, Social construct theory of ADHD.--scuro (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Those with ADHD commonly have another comorbid condition estimated at roughly 60 and 80%.[12] Psychiatrists and social critics believe that this indicates that the nuances of diagnosis have not been adequately described; i.e. ADHD may be different from ADHD with other comorbid conditions such as conduct disorder or Tourette syndrome.

The above entry is from the skeptism towards diagnosis. I don't believe the first sentence is debated by anyone. The second sentence seems to be inferring that a diagnosis of ADHD creates a strict black and white entity in the indidual with the diagnosis. The contributor then seems to be implying that since there are comorbid disorders, the nuances of the individual or the diagnosis are generally not flushed out.

How is this controversial within the standards of minority or majority opinion? There is no debate that ADHD has several faces. First off there are three types of ADHD. Researchers are looking at a possible 4th called SCT. That designation may be in the next edition of the DSM. When someone gets a dual diagnosis that individual is seen as having a majority of the symptoms of both disorders. This leads to many possible varients and combinations of symptoms. Neither of the above realities is debated by majority or minority opinion so it would not be controversial. If you are the contributor who created this section please explain the entry. Help from any contributor in understanding what this section means would also be appreciated. If I hear from no one this entry will be deleted shortly.--scuro (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

second paragraph

Behavior checklists, such as the Brown scale or the Conners scale, may be one component of information used in a competent diagnosis. Yet, social critics point out that these behaviors may be interpreted subjectively, especially when family and cultural norms are taken into consideration. These critics believe that a diagnosis based on such a scale may actually be more subjective than objective.[12] (see cultural subjectivism).

In reading this section the question(s) that should be asked are: i)is the use of rating scales as a single tool of many tools for diagnosis, controversial? ii)Secondly I ask is there anything specifically controversial about using rating scales? iii)Finally, is the subjective nature of the diagnosis controversial? The citation provided in the article doesn't speak to the rating scales, instead it speaks to symptoms mentioned in the DSM-IV.--scuro (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Off of the top of my head the answers to the questions are i) rating scales definitely have a place as a diagnostic tool for ADHD, ii) the scales while appearing simplistic or too bound in methodology to capture nuances...is a clinically proven effective tool, iii) the diagnosis of many disorders is 100% subjective and the criticism is not mainstream. --scuro (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Subclinical ADHD

The section basically states that if the number of symptoms is under six it is not a valid diagnosis. Okay...so what? How is this controversial and what does it have to do with this article?--scuro (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This section has been deleted.--scuro (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I had gathered from the talk page discussion, that the COAtrack tag was focused on the diet section, and the kids section, so when they were gone I thought that was the problem fixed. I can't see anything else in the article which isn't relevant, what is it you're still concerned about? Restepc (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage controversy section

There's been a lot of work on that section recently, does anyone still think we need that tag on it? Restepc (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OOOOOOOhhhhhhhhh yeah. Don't take off that tag, it's very unbalanced. I'd work on that section myself but I wonder if it will exist in the future. What is a "media coverage controversy"? Is it that the coverage is controversial or that the media is covering controversy in ADHD?--scuro (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's giving examples of the controversy over ADHD being highlighted in the media.

Unbalanced how? Restepc (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Google news has approximately 500 news stories on ADHD over the last month. Did you ever ask yourself why these particular examples were chosen for the Media controversy section? ADHD used to be a much more popular topic. Especially around the time of the ritalin class action lawsuits. One of the sources used in this article is 7 to 8 years old. Knowing the long lasting interest in this topic, in that time frame one can conservatively estimate that there were 42,000 news worthy items posted on the internet. Who knows how many more in other mediums. Is something really controversial if it is a tiny minority of the total output and not necessarily all of minority or majority opinion?

Then there is the issue of what is news? For example if you are posting an opinion letter, is this controversial even if you are famous? Is it not controversial, only if the author's opinion is directly related to there area of expertise? For example there was a nobel prize winning scientist, I believe in the field of DNA research who wrote some pretty bigoted stuff. He was a brilliant guy but the bigoted ideas had no traction...he was speaking outside of field of expertise. Were his bigoted ideas controversial? No, because there was no "beef" to what he said. It was simply an obvious expression of bias. I could go on about this section but I have bigger fish to fry. While I agree that there are occasionally controversial news stories about ADHD, I would suggest that there are many, many more articles that deal with the topic in a non-controversial manner. If you only focus on controversy and do not mention how media treats this topic in general, then the original contributor was obviously POV pushing.--scuro (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The section focuses on the media coverage of the ADHD controversy, because it is called 'media coverage of the ADHD controversy'. If you would like to add something about how the media treats this topic in general then do, but for the section entitled 'media coverage of the ADHD controversy' to focus on media coverage of the ADHD controversy isn't unbalanced, it's logical. Restepc (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove a tag from any section if a contributor opposes that action, until the issue is vetted out in talk.--scuro (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I cannot see your point (and strongly disagree with what I do see) on this section, despite us already having talked about it a fair bit, so I suggest we get a third opinion: someone who has never edited this article or any related articles, as it's a matter of checking the balance and doesn't need any knowledge of the subject or articles history, and obviously someone who isn't friendly with either of us. Your thoughts? Restepc (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Scuro, I can not see any way in which that section is unbalanced, do you still object the removal of the tag? If so could you please dicuss how we should resolve this, I have waited for any changes you feel needed, and I have suggested getting a third opinion....Restepc (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I do feel it is still unbalanced. I could do a rewrite and post in talk. I'd do it on the page but I believe that section is dear to Ss. That to me would be the next logical step.--scuro (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is an attempt at creating balance, I tackled only references to the US, to briefly show you what I would consider to be a more balanced section.

Media coverage of ADHD in the US peaked around the year 2000. The interest in the topic coincided with a sharp increase of stimulant medications in the US at that time. PBS' Frontline ran an extensive report with a large selection of interviews with important representatives of the various viewpoints. Critics included who contended that ADHD is a controversial disorder were, Fred Baughman and Peter Breggin. Scientology and Scientology members such as Tom Cruise also have used the media to contended that ADHD is a controversial disorder.--scuro (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage of ADHD in the US peaked around the year 2000. The interest in the topic coincided with a sharp increase of stimulant medications in the US at that time. need citations for that, and the 'at that time' at the end doesn't seem necessary.

PBS' Frontline ran an extensive report with a large selection of interviews with important representatives of [removed the word the, as it minorly suggests that all the viewpoints were covered, which I doubt as there are so many on this subject] various viewpoints.

Critics included who [contended isn't a NPOV word, 'stated' would be better, but I'd suggest there two people should be mentioned elsewhere in the article, not really here] that ADHD is a controversial disorder were, Fred Baughman and Peter Breggin.

Scientology and Scientology members such as Tom Cruise also have used the media to contended that ADHD is a controversial disorder. This last part surely would be better in the scientology section?

Basically I think most of what you're suggesting should be in other sections, I'm not happy with the first parts focus entirely on the US (and it would need to be clearly cited), and the PBS thing is already mentioned. I'd really like to know what exactly the problem you have with that section is? The selection or the phrasing or what? Restepc (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made some edits to that section, removed a few odd words, grammar, punctuation etc, sentence saying that the interview contradicts this page and titles for articles that are already titled in the ref section and I felt unnecessary. I'm thinking perhaps the Panorama study should be cited in that section, but the house of lords part should be moved somewhere else, it certainly doesn't come under the heading of media coverage.Restepc (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If the article really needs a media section then get it right. The general public is highly aware of Tom Cruise and his viewpoint on medication and contended controversies that he believes exists. He deserves a lot of weight in this section. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Get ride of the section all together or balance it fairly.--scuro (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Tom Cruise=actor/celebrity/scientologist. Like I said, shouldn't he be in the scientology section? Restepc (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure he should be in the media section but when interviewed about Brooke Shields he made some very controversial remarks about ADHD. http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art33219.asp If you are writing about ADHD and media and controversy how can you exclude him? To do so imparts bias.--scuro (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying he should be excluded, I think he should be in the article, just not in that section, he isn't media coverage. Restepc (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please.....he isn't media coverage but his viewpoints were certainly covered to death by the media. What he said became watercooler fodder. It's highly noteworthy and to purposefully exclude it smacks of POV pushing.--scuro (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly and very very clearly said I am not excluding mentions of Tom Cruise from this article, I am however struggling to see why that section of the article should have an unbalanced tag on it. Restepc (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed a lot of what you put, mostly grammar/phrasing/spelling wikilinks. The internet thing needs some sort of citation, and who is lawrence diller? I'll work on the second paragraph when I get chance, think it needs expanding and the house of lords thing moving to a separate section....possibly a section about legal debates around ADHD, house of lords, class action law suits, debate in congress etc, your thoughts? Restepc (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Made further corrections. Worked on the second paragraph separating media shows from opinion which is in the second paragraph. Added Tom Cruise. Expand as you wish, I may do likewise. Did a quick check on the the Baroness, I didn't see that the inquiry was actually held. I don't know how you feel about this but this section could now be put in the main article...where I believe it actually belongs.--scuro (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many controversies surrounding ADHD, I don't think they could fit comfortably in the main article, what we have here isn't nearly enough, the media coverage section makes more sense here I think, because it's the controversies which generate such interest. What you wrote seems fine to me at a glance.

I'd still like to include some info on who diller is seeing as he doesn't have an article here, then I intend to replace the house of lords part with the actual panorama show, and move the house of lords to a different section as it doesn't really fit there. Then hopefully we will have one section in this article without major problems and I'll move onto the lead :) Restepc (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Dietary issues and ADHD

In the main ADHD article under causes there is this single sentence.

Despite the lack of evidence that nutrition causes ADHD,[31] studies have found that malnutrition is correlated with attention deficits.[32]

and a separate section

Complicating factors

Many studies point to synthetic preservatives and artificial coloring agents aggravating ADD & ADHD symptoms in those affected.[35][36] Older studies were inconclusive quite possibly due to inadequate clinical methods of measuring offending behavior. Parental reports were more accurate indicators of the presence of additives than clinical tests. [37] Several major studies show academic performance increased and disciplinary problems decreased in large non-ADD student populations when artificial ingredients, including artificial colors were eliminated from school food programs.[38][39].

I'd like to merge the above with what we have in the main article here on this talk page and then after editors have a chance to give input, cut the section from this article and move the improved material to the adhd article. It makes no sense to me why dietary issues is controversial. --scuro (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a draft of a merge with an interesting addition about food alergies. It's my first draft and citations will need work, but tell me what you think. I believe this should go on the main page.

It is believed that there are several different causes of ADHD. Roughly 75 percent of ADHD is considered genetic in nature. Environmental agents also cause ADHD. These agents, such as alcohol, tobacco, and lead, are believed to stress babies prenatally and cause ADHD. Studies have found that malnutrition is also correlated with attention deficits. Diet seems to cause ADHD symptoms or make them worse. Many studies point to synthetic preservatives and artificial coloring agents aggravating ADD & ADHD symptoms in those affected.[35][36] Older studies were inconclusive quite possibly due to inadequate clinical methods of measuring offending behavior. Parental reports were more accurate indicators of the presence of additives than clinical tests. [37] Several major studies show academic performance increased and disciplinary problems decreased in large non-ADD student populations when artificial ingredients, including artificial colors were eliminated from school food programs.[38][39]. Professor John Warner stated, “significant changes in children’s hyperactive behaviour could be produced by the removal of artificial colourings and sodium benzoate from their diet.” and “you could halve the number of kids suffering the worst behavioural problems by cutting out additives”. Roughly 5% of children with ADHD are helped significantly when their diets are restricted. The vast majority of these children are believed to have food allergies. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/adhd/complete-publication.shtml#pub4 --scuro (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Add what is here to the main article if you want Scuro but the diet issue is controversial for the reasons previously stated. Off the top of my head they are that the effects of diet are being ignored in diagnosis and treatment of ADHD and the clinical study cited was only done at the end of last year and calls for the American health body to respond have been made and as yet they haven't responded. (There is also a possible legal issue of negligence) But for only the first reason my contribution should remain in this article - it is true, sourced and relevant. Mimi ^(yack) 02:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Um.. where is it by the way? Some consensus. Oh do what you like, you will anyway. Mimi ^(yack) 02:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The simple solution is just to change the title of the article to, Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies and fringe theories on ADHD controversy. Then anyone can pile whatever they like into the article. I'd be fine with that because then the reader would be at least aware that some of what they are reading goes well beyond majority or minority viewpoints. Now such a solution would cheapen any real controversial issues by association but if you are fine with that so am I.

I thought you would actually be happy that with the transfer to the main page. Readers will learn more about diet now then they did previously. I'm sure the main ADHD page is read many more times then the controversy page so that move actually makes the issue a lot more visible. I've wanted to bring more to that page from this page. It would be good to merge the two pages. Why can't controversy exist on the main page? The only reason I can come up with for that question is because then the wheat would get separated from the chaff and I am gathering that some contributors really want to protect the chaff. Fringe viewpoints need the association with valid criticism so they have currency in the readers mind.

Now to your criticisms and bashing:

• Off the top of my head they are that the effects of diet are being ignored in diagnosis - if the disorder is caused by toxins the damage has been done. Eat enough lead or drink enough while pregnant and you can do real harm. If quantities are not huge then the symptoms and the damage resembles ADHD. The treatments are also similar. As noted in the research I did and added, food allergies are the main dietary reason for symptoms that look a lot like ADHD. Food allergies have been estimated to be roughly about 5% of all cases. If you have food allergies you will have other symptoms and any good Dr. would be looking for that. So how is this controversial?

• and treatment of ADHD - beyond changing diet for those who have food allergies, dietary supplements help some people with ADHD improve some of their symptoms. You don't get the overall bang for the buck by changing diet. It is not a magic bullet for all and seems to really only work for a few. Still, it is probably the first treatment that most parents attempt because that is what is most often recommended to them. So how is this controversial?

• and the clinical study cited was only done at the end of last year and calls for the American health body to respond have been made and as yet they haven't responded. (There is also a possible legal issue of negligence) - Just because a study recommends something, doesn't mean that it must be done...and on a timeline at that. There could be many reasons why they wouldn't respond or delay their response.

• my contribution should remain in this article - it is true, sourced and relevant.-you would think it would have more relevance on the main article.

• Um.. where is it by the way? Some consensus. - Um...like I didn't telegraph every edit I was going to make on talk, and delayed the edits so that other contributors could respond? If everyone chooses to be silent or to ignore the page for week or two at a time, must I wait for every editor to respond before I make a change?

• Oh do what you like, you will anyway. - it's so much easier to bash then actually do real work in Wikipedia.--scuro (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

psychminded.co.uk

Psychminded is the leading UK-based publisher providing independent news, features, comment and other online services - including job vacancies - for all who work in psychology, psychiatry and mental health. Psychminded.co.uk and psychminded.com are managed by the Midlands-based publisher, Psychminded Ltd, and is independent of any professional society. Adam James is the editor and a contributor. A search on google gives no biographical details on credentials. He appears to be active in the antipsychiatry movement and the website appears to be POV pushing.--scuro (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"the vast majority of children manifesting this behavior do not have a biological deficit"

From the skepticism section. This appears to be fringe opinion from critics with no expertise in field population studies or any field that would allow them to make such sweeping generalizations.--scuro (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Over-prescription

2 points made...i) that there was a dramatic increase in the use of stimulants in the US during the 90's. ii) there are a lot prescriptions.

• Response to i): The rate is now steady
• Response to ii): There is even a much greater amount of people with a diagnosis of ADHD.

The controversy would be?...that there was a sharp increase in prescriptions for meds back in the 90's? That less then 1/2 of those with ADHD use stimulant medication? Neither majority or minority opinion see this as being controversial. I move to delete this section. If you disagree please find proper citations to support claims.--scuro (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this information applies to this ADHD page: According to information found in Milt Freudenheim’s article in The New York Times, the sale of behavioral drugs has grown more rapidly than any other type of medicine taken by children, including the previous leaders, antibiotics and asthma treatments. Most of the drugs were treatments for depression and attention deficit disorder, including prescriptions combining both treatments for the same patient. Over the past decade more children and younger children have been diagnosed with attention disorders. And the selling of attention disorder medications for children under the age of 5 rose nearly 50 percent from 2000 to 2003[66]. --Bethyd25 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a good link. From what I have read about the issues, the meat and potatoes issue is the prescriptions for stimulants for those under 5. Here you will find active debate in the field. Information like that should not only be on this page but the main page. The growth of the use of behavioural drugs is not so clear cut. How do you quantify it to ADHD when other drugs and disorders are mixed in? From what I have read, prescription rates have leveled off for ADHD in North America.--scuro (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Preschooler subsection added to article.--scuro (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Makes what claims? I really don't understand that tag....

"Among the other issues are" is what is tagged....are you asking for a citation saying that those issues listed are issues? In which case surely they should be sourced individually, as they are (kinda, major problems with some of the sources currently used). As I understand it the 'who' tag is to query who specifically said something, I'm basically asking 'who said what?' Restepc (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The intro needs to be a synopsis of the article. --scuro (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't really help me understand your concern with the phrase 'among other issues are' Restepc (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Restepc, I didn't connect all the dots the first time. The attribution tag is there to determine who believes ALL the stated points in that sentence to be controversial? If it was the NIMH website which stated all of those points, that would be significant. If it's a bunch of mad hatters that is also significant. Or is it simply a "synthesis" or original research which determined these specific points to be controversial? Wikipedia wants controversy to be attributed.--scuro (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I still don't get it, the controversy should be attributed, but that's what the citations on each point are for (although there are many problems with the current citations, I'll get to that after this) Restepc (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For example, violent video games are considered controversial. You could say they are controversial because they increase aggression, lead to poor child social development, and cause cancer. In my example, all three criticisms have been linked together, some of which may be valid and others bogus. Yet if a noteworthy source stated this then the claim becomes significant. In the intro the question is, is this a synthesis of ideas by a contributor or can this list be attributed to a noteworthy source?...in which case the whole is much stronger then the parts.--scuro (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

genetic basis of disorder

Glenmullen is neither a minority voice or majority voice on genetics. He does not work in that field and has no related expertise to the study of DNA. He was trained as a psychiatrist. He his criticism is based on the single gene theory. Even though he is a Dr. and did work at Harvard at one point, he is a fringe critic with regards to genetics.--scuro (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I know of no minority or majority opinion in the field that believes that ADHD does not have genetic underpinnings. Unless someone can provide such information this section should be deleted.--scuro (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoephedrine = coatrack issue

"Pseudoephedrine, which is similar, has been attacked for its use in cold medicine given to children". The sentence was removed but then restored in the article. Pseudoephedrine is a decongestant which is also a stimulant. I'm pretty certain that Dr.'s do not prescribe this medication for ADHD...not even off label..but hey prove me wrong. From what I gather those who take stimulant medication should be careful when taking decongestants. So what is this doing in a ADHD controversy article? If we are ever going to get this article even half cleaned up we need to stop wasting time on silly issues like this.--scuro (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's used by suffers to control their condition, I haven't heard of it being prescribed, but that's pretty much irrelevant considering it's available without prescription.... Restepc (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't at all get the controversy of Pseudoephedrine as related to ADHD and this is why I am labeling it as a coatrack issue. It really has nothing to do with ADHD or even ADHD medication. It is a stimulant but there are a number of stimulants, some in common use such caffeine and nicotine...both also in use without prescription. Could you please cite a reference to the drug and adhd that explains it's controversial relationship? Thanks,--scuro (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we please get permission to delete this sentence? It doesn't belong. It will be removed if it is no longer defended.--scuro (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

bold editing

The article has been reorganized for clarity. Some material was moved to the social construct article. Other material which was fringe material or unrelated to the topic was deleted.--scuro (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is ADHD a Biological Illness

The section below is now gone. Can someone tell me who did it, when and for what reason?

''One of the most controversial issues regarding ADHD is whether it is wholly or even predominantly a biological illness, a defect in the brain. The current predominance of opinion in medicine is that this is the case, but the fact is that the cause of ADHD remains unknown. Examples of this ongoing disagreement are found wherever research will support or not support the biological argument. Thus, there are radically different opinions about whether there is a genetic basis. (See below) While there have been repeated articles citing physical differences in the brain of those with ADHD most of these have not stood up. Xavier Castellanos MD, then head of ADHD research at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and firmly convinced that ADHD is a biological illness, acknowledged this in an interview with Frontline Castellanos interview. Critics of Dr. Castellanos’ own research have pointed out that the differences he was claiming do exist could have been the result of medication taken. ( He has since been working on eliminating this variable) However, even if differences in the brain will be found, an important issue is that the physical brain can be changed by patterns of behavior. Thus learning Braille causes enlargement of the part of the motor cortex that controls finger movements. [4] After they have passed their licensing exam, London taxi drivers have been found to have a significantly enlarged hippocampus compared to non-taxi drivers[5][6]. Patients abused during their childhood with post traumatic stress disorder will have a flattened out hippocampus. [7] Professional musicians have brains that are different from non-musicians. [8] Monks who meditate show measurable differences in their prefrontal lobes.) [9][10][11]

So diminished concerted effort when confronted with tasks thought to be drudgery ( e.g. homework, paying attention to teachers, and the like) even if not caused by differences in the brain, could have brain changing effects. In “Rethinking ADHD: International Perspectives” (ed Timini,S 2008 Palgrave Macmillan) an alternative paradigm for ADHD argues that, while biological factors may obviously play a large role in difficulties sitting still and/or concentrating on schoolwork in some children, the vast majority of children manifesting this behavior do not have a biological deficit. For a variety of reasons they have failed to integrate into their psychology the ability to work at chores that are expected of them. Their restlessness and daydreaming is similar to the behavior of other, normal children when they are not engaged, and are bored and trapped by circumstances. Very frequently, children with ADHD/ADD have no difficulty concentrating on activities that they find to be interesting, or fun, (for example video games, which require enormous attention skills). When they are taught by a charismatic entertaining teacher, they similarly can concentrate.''

I was gone for a month or two and am not surprised it is gone. I see there has also been a constant attempt by guess who to rid the page of the media coverage section . So far it has been resisted, but I am sure through his usual persistence that will soon be gone. ABD are you out there?--Ss06470 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly blunt Ss, this style of writing does not suit Wikipedia. It is written in a persuasive essay format whereby the author builds a viewpoint up using several different ideas as support, and typically argues one side of the coin. The passage also does not fit the the encyclopedic format that WIkipedia wants. A significant section of the passage appears to be original research or a synthesis of ideas. Viewpoints expressed appear to be neither majority or minority opinion. When citations are given they are often by people who have no expertise in the field which is being discussed.

I could attempt to rewrite it for you if you like. I'm sure some of it has been rewritten and/ or moved to the social construct article. Have you looked in that article?

Of greater importance to me is that the article has been cleaned up significantly to the point that tags could be taken off. I believe that a good deal of the information left could be moved to the main ADHD page and it would be good if we could discuss this. If we can agree to things it would be hard for anyone to disagree with us.--scuro (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone else out there? The section that was removed directly addresses the most controversial issue, one that comes up again and again ans again. It is clearly written and yes does some educating about the significance of biological findings. What do you mean the cited research are not from "experts" in this field. This is empirical research and the point being made is conclusively showing that behavior can change the physical brain. On that issue their research is either valid or not. One does not ask are these scientists ADHD experts? What kind of reasoning are you using to get a "cleaned up article? Is that really your motive? Or do you want to get rid of content that challenges the point of view you have? By the way the removed section explicitly states that the biological point of view represnts "the current predominance of opinion in medicine" so when you say it is one sided it isn't as if it is claiming to be the "expert" opinion. It is simply developing another way of looking at things, which is the whole point of a controversy page. (only, for some strange reason you won't allow this other side to be presented )

As for the second part, the hypothetical position about the psychology involved in ADHD (as it relates to a certain kind of bonding with parents) it is by no means proven, but deserves to be represented since that way of looking at ADHD is not presented anywhere else in the two articles. It is a position taken in the book "Rethinking ADHD" Instead of eliminating it why don't you bring up articles that argue with it. Are you afraid to let readers see this way of thinking on the controversy page. Once again who are you Scuro? How do you manage to eliminate anything that challenges mainstream thinking? How do you keep at it week after week, month after month? Where do you find the time to do it? Who employs you? Why are you so passionate about this subject? Why is it worth all of that effort? Do you not have other subjects that you can also "improve" or is this the one that you guard so steadfastly. Why???? That is the part I don't understand,----24.151.119.232 (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)24.151.119.232 (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume it's Ss once again? You bring up several points and I'd love to address them fully. First, you are a Dr., are you not? We know how to have a civilized conversation without making baseless accusations? Can we not convince others of our ideas without attempting to create bias by making slurs? Wikipedian policy states, comment on the content and not the contributor. That is the point of talk...to discuss and agree upon. Yet the personal attacks never stop now...do they? Have you not already gotten a formal warning for attacking me previously? I'd step away from the keyboard and think things over if I were you.

We can move forward when you are ready. Commit in talk to the guiding principle of Wikipedia, and that is to come to consensusWP:CON in a spirit of good faithWP:GOODFAITH, and I will answer your questions and probably concede some points to you. Without that commitment from you, discussion is useless because I am not required to constantly be abusedWP:EQ.--scuro (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

the possibility of moving "concerns about medication" to the main ADHD treatment article

I think we could move the whole section to the ADHD treatment article. We could could then link internally to that article as the "alternative treatments" in this article also are linked to their respective articles. Any thoughts?--scuro (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

the possibility of moving "alternative theories of ADHD" to the main ADHD article

I think we could move the whole section to the main ADHD article at or near the bottom. These sections link out anyways. The farmer/hunter theory is well known. Any thoughts?--scuro (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

status of article

Much of the info has been moved to the main article or used to create new articles. What we are left with are these subsections.

   *   Misconceptions
   *   Media Coverage of the ADHD Controversy
   *   Religious and Social critics claims of controversy

None of which are the basis of controversy of ADHD and really offer little value to this specific topic. Since the main article now contains specific criticisms such as medication and diagnosis, the question becomes does this article have a reason to exist? --scuro (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Scuro you are one step away from obliterating the contributions of me and many others who attempted to do something constructive here. You have already removed item after item from me and others using thin excuses. And now what is left is the media section which contains a rich variety of links that bring readers to outside sources addressing the purpose of this article. I note that you are warning me not to make short snipes at you and then leave. I am not trying to be sneaky or anything else. You have driven me and numerous other contributors (who disagree with you)away so there is nothing productive to do here. As you know I have written pages and pages and pages of arguments on these pages. In the end, through sheer persistence and obtuseness you have prevailed. Now you are trying to get rid of this page altogether. Yes, at this point, I take a look at this page every month or so and yes I am newly shocked that you are still at it. As for your threats to report me, or ban me, or whatever else you are warning me about I can assure you that my experience with you has convinced me that Wikipedia, while an interesting experiment, is close to worthless unless it truly is policed to remove the power of someone like you. Its standards are presumably shcolarly, but giving power to annonymous people like you is absurd. I have asked you repeatedly to identify yourself, so readers can know where you are coming from, but you have refused. Yet you dig up and distort every bit of trash that you can find about crtiics in this field. If you would like to report me please do. Perhaps that will bring an outside person to go over what you have managed to pull off here. I simply don't have the time to learn about how I might get an independent person to evaluate your behavior. (I am not talking about talk here I am talking about what you do with impunity.) For a while abd, who seems to know about Wikepedia, was taking you on, but he also seems to have found more productive ways to spend his time. So please!!!!! bring in someone fromn Wikepia to evaluate my misbehavior. Hopefully he/she will then review your actions-- Simon Sobo MDSs06470 (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Except for the long paragraph of bold which hurt my eyes and which I've converted back to plain, taking the liberty of harmless formatting, I must say that I understand where Dr. Sobo is coming from. When I had occasion to review the history of the main article and this one, over the last couple of years, I found that the articles had devolved. They became duller, less interesting, and, indeed, less informative. I'm pretty sure that they became better sourced, but, gradually, good writing and good text was removed. Scuro is an WP:SPA and he has pushed the limits of what an SPA should do. But things like this happen all the time, hardly anyone is minding the store. Unless someone *else* can do the same thing, stay on top of an article, there will be people like Scuro who will steadily push the article in one direction, and, slowly, it will move as long as that person does not go too far. I became involved in other things, and so, while the articles are still in my watchlist, my watchlist became so enormous that this article was more or less lost in the flood.

However, I'll point this out. If anyone wants to take an old revision and bring back in removed material, it can be done. Absolutely, it's a lot of work. That's the problem. Trying to maintain a Wikipedia article on a controversial is like pushing that old boulder up the mountain. Obvious vandalism? Wikipedia is really good at dealing with it quickly. But subtle shifts in article content? Steadily and slowly? Very difficult to prevent, unless one is one it. Every day. Experts such as Dr. Sobo can't afford the time, generally. I have a similar problem, long-term. I'm expert elsewhere. As to ADHD, I merely know it from the inside. 18 mg/day Concerta, plus 5 mg Ritalin straight in the morning, and 150 mg/day bupropion SR. And when I get a cold, I look forward to the pseudoephedrine, though it only has that effect for a couple of days at the most.--Abd (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Abd, I focus on a limited number of articles because I have fixed amount of time and the number of articles in serious need of major editing seems to be endless. You see that as a fault that you use as a springboard to negatively focus on me as a contributor, and that speaks volumes. Once again I'll ask that you please stop. It's not constructive in the least.

There were many edits and they were all done in good faith. Each edit was documented. A good number of the potential edits were mentioned in talk before they happened. There were also a limited amount of edits per session after which I usually paused for several days giving other contributors a chance to contribute. You and Dr. Sobo also forgot to mention that I have moved a good chunk of the text on this page to the main pages of ADHD articles. In effect I have given the topics more exposure then these topics previously had received here. I also added extensive information with citations to the medication and children section...making a point to show warts and all on this topic. These edits have happened over months and improved the remaining material significantly. Much of the clean-up focused on improving poor written material or eliminating extraneous coatrack material. Unsourced material received citation requests and if none came over an extended period of time, the material was eliminated if it looked to be extraneous or unsupportable by proper citations. Ample opportunity to give feedback was given every step of the way so I really don't see how you or anyone else for that matter can criticize my approach. Now I am suggesting that this article be eliminated. There is not much to this article that isn't in one of the ADHD articles. All the material which I have moved from this article to the main articles has not been challenged, demonstrating the point I am making here which is there appears to be no reason for this articles existence. Feel free to suggest edits that should not have been done. I am open to discussion but I would appreciate if it was done in a civil manner that focused strictly on content.--scuro (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Poor sources make for a poor article: include academic and medical journals

I stumbled upon this article today. I know precious little about Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, which is probably a good thing. Here is a brief sample of the controversies based on JSTOR results from an outside editor offering a third-opinion. There is much to include in this article from the mainstream.:

Nola Purdie, John Hattie and Annemaree Carroll. “A Review of the Research on Interventions for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: What Works Best?” Review of Educational Research, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 61-99 Published by: American Educational Research Association.

Abstract: This meta-analysis examined 74 studies in which there had been an intervention that aimed to improve the behavioral, cognitive, and/or social functioning of people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or attention deficit disorder (ADD). Overall, there were larger effects of the various interventions on behavioral than on educational outcomes. These overall effects were larger for medical interventions than for educational, psychosocial, or parent training interventions, but there was little support for flow-over effects, from the reduction in behavior problems to enhanced educational outcomes. The effects on educational outcomes were greater for educational interventions than for other types of intervention.

Claudia Malacrida. “Alternative Therapies and Attention Deficit Disorder: Discourses of Maternal Responsibility and Risk”. Gender and Society, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Jun., 2002), pp. 366-385.

Abstract: In response to controversies about Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Ritalin, many alternative therapies have proliferated in professional and lay circles. This study examines alternative therapy discourse and asks whether these texts offer any real challenge to traditional discourses of medicalized motherhood. Indeed, alternative therapies employ most of medicine's discursive strategies, portraying mothers as inadequate and responsible for their children's problems and positioning the child as both at risk and a danger to society. Furthermore, the speculative causal factors and the lengths to which mothers are encouraged to go in alternative therapy texts place a heavier burden on women than do traditional medical texts. Thus, while the medical treatment for ADD might be challenged, alternative therapy discourse supports the legitimacy of ADD as a diagnostic category, argues that its causes are personal and gendered, and claims that professional intervention remains the proper response.

Peter Conrad, Deborah Potter. From Hyperactive Children to ADHD Adults: Observations on the Expansion of Medical Categories” Social Problems, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Nov., 2000), pp. 559-58

Abstract: Medicalization is, by definition, about the extension of medical boundaries. Analogous to "domain expansion, " extant medicalized categories can expand to become broader and more inclusive. This paper examines the emergence of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in adults. ADHD, commonly known as Hyperactivity, became established in the 1970s as a diagnosis for children; it expanded first to include "adult hyperactives" and, in the 1990s, "ADHD Adults." This allowed for the inclusion of an entire population of people and their problems that were excluded by the original conception of hyperactive children. We show how lay, professional, and media claims help establish the expanded diagnostic category. We identify particular aspects of the social context that contributed to the rise of adult ADHD and outline some of the social implications of ADHD in adults, especially the medicalization of underperformance and the availability of new disability rights. Adult ADHD serves as an exemplar of several cases of diagnostic expansion, an important avenue of increasing medicalization.

Janet Currie. “Health Disparities and Gaps in School Readiness.” The Future of Children, Vol. 15, No. 1, School Readiness: Closing Racial and Ethnic Gaps (Spring, 2005), pp. 117-138

Abstract: The author documents pervasive racial disparities in the health of American children and analyzes how and how much those disparities contribute to racial gaps in school readiness. She explores a broad sample of health problems common to U.S. children, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma, and lead poisoning, as well as maternal health problems and health-related behaviors that affect children's behavioral and cognitive readiness for school. If a health problem is to affect the readiness gap, it must affect many children, it must be linked to academic performance or behavior problems, and it must show a racial disparity either in its prevalence or in its effects. The author focuses not only on the black-white gap in health status but also on the poor-nonpoor gap because black children tend to be poorer than white children. The health conditions Currie considers seriously impair cognitive skills and behavior in individual children. But most explain little of the overall racial gap in school readiness. Still, the cumulative effect of health differentials summed over all conditions is significant. Currie's rough calculation is that racial differences in health conditions and in maternal health and behaviors together may account for as much as a quarter of the racial gap in school readiness. Currie scrutinizes several policy steps to lessen racial and socioeconomic disparities in children's health and to begin to close the readiness gap. Increasing poor children's eligibility for Medicaid and state child health insurance is unlikely to be effective because most poor children are already eligible for public insurance. The problem is that many are not enrolled. Even in- creasing enrollment may not work: socioeconomic disparities in health persist in Canada and the United Kingdom despite universal public health insurance. The author finds more promise in strengthening early childhood programs with a built-in health component, like Head Start; family-based services and home visiting programs; and WIC, the federal nutrition program for women, infants, and small children. In all three, trained staff can help parents get ongoing care for their children.

Jane D. McLeod, Bernice A. Pescosolido, David T. Takeuchi, Terry Falkenberg White. “Public Attitudes toward the Use of Psychiatric Medications for Children” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Mar., 2004), pp. 53-67

Abstract: Psychiatric medication use for children has increased dramatically over the past three decades. Despite substantial media attention to the issue, little is known about how the lay public feels about the use of psychiatric medications for children. Drawing on theories of medicalization, we describe and analyze Americans' attitudes towards the use of psychiatric medications generally and Prozac specifically for children described as having three types of behavioral problems. Using data from the 1998 General Social Survey s Pressing Issues in Health and Medical Care Module, we find that more Americans (57%) are willing to use psychiatric medications for children who have expressed suicidal statements than for "oppositional" behaviors (34.2%) or for hyperactivity (29.5%). Across the board, respondents are less willing to give Prozac than the general class of psychiatric medications. While socio-demographics do little to identify Americans with differing positions, the strongest and most consistent correlates of willingness to give psychiatric medications to children are trust in personal physicians, general attitudes towards psychiatric medications, and the respondents expressed willing- ness to take psychiatric medications herself or himself.

Neil Scheurich. “Moral Attitudes & Mental Disorders” The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2002), pp. 14-2

Terrie E. Moffitt. “The Neuropsychology of Juvenile Delinquency: A Critical Review” Crime and Justice, Vol. 12, (1990), pp. 99-169

Donna L. Terman, Mary B. Larner, Carol S. Stevenson, Richard E. Behrman. “Special Education for Students with Disabilities: Analysis and Recommendations” The Future of Children, Vol. 6, No. 1, Special Education for Students with Disabilities (Spring, 1996), pp. 4-24

Kenneth A. Kavale, Steven R. Forness. “The Politics of Learning Disabilities” Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 4, The Politics of Learning Disabilities (Autumn, 1998), pp. 245-273.

Seth J. Schwartz, Howard A. Liddle. “The Transmission of Psychopathology from Parents to Offspring: Development and Treatment in Context”, Family Relations, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Oct., 2001), pp. 301-307

I would have included all the abstracts, but they take far too cut and paste. My only point is to demonstrate that there is a wide untapped literature for this encyclopedia article (there are several more medical and academic articles to read). Editors of this article should maybe consider looking into these articles further before deciding to merge, delete, or substantially whittle down this article. If other editors who are passionately involved in this subject, found these citations to be unhelpful, I understand. I'll stay out of it. Regards, J Readings (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The question I have is what information provided by these abstracts in noteworthy, controversial, and can't be put in one of the main ADHD articles?--scuro (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. To be honest, that's not the question that I would have automatically asked. As I mentioned, these academic journal citations are only put on the talk page to demonstrate that there is a fairly large untapped literature out there that editors of this page should seriously consider reading before any hasty decisions are made to delete, merge, or whittle down this article. I know virtually nothing about this topic myself, so I can only contribute what I've read over the past two days.

According to LexisNexis, another good research database, a keyword search for "controversy," "ADHD" and "Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder" (with emphasis on 3 mentions or more within the article) reveals quite a few articles just about this subject. Indeed, just from the Scientology aspect alone, LexisNexis generated 26 articles from independent, reliable third-party sources discussing all of the controversies between the religious organization and pharmaceutical companies, medical associations and other interest groups. These sources are quite mainstream, albeit newspapers in various parts of the world (not just America). Titles include "ADHD drugs ridiculed", "ADHD flier draws fire from advocacy groups", "Portsmouth School Board's ADHD flier draws fire", "ADHD guide aims to reassure", "Scientology's war on psychiatry", "Troubled teens need more than just drugs", etc.

Then there is the controversial nature versus nurture debate (of which ADHD plays a large role), discussed within the journal articles above and within published magazines and newspaper articles. I could list all of the articles relating to ADHD, but I think you get the point: there is a wealth of information from which editors here can draw in order to write this article. I would be happy to help if both sides are interested in including these sources.

I understand that some editors continue to believe passionately in a certain POV and don't like to call attention to other documented viewpoints. Consequently, articles like this become battlegrounds for POV-pushers on both sides. The side that doesn't want the article will always scream "POV-fork" while the other side will scream "censorship". Please understand: I'm not interested in taking sides or causing trouble. All I'm saying is that I'm surprised that the large number of resources available to both sides has not been included in the article yet. It is very much possible to document the debate without actually participating in it. As editors of an encyclopedia, that is what we should be striving to do. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see a feature article on the controversial nature of ADHD by say Time or the Economist or any major circulation magazine. Of the multitude of webpages by national health institutes, from what I can see, only the Every Child Matters website makes reference to the controversial nature of the disorder.

There is no escaping the fact that ADHD remains a controversial diagnosis, however. Some health practitioners believe it is under-diagnosed in the UK, and that children are going without the help and support they need in order to make the most of their education and life chances; other practitioners fear it is being over-diagnosed, and some have serious doubts about or even reject the concept of ADHD altogether. Some practitioners are particularly concerned about the use of medication for children diagnosed with ADHD. Others argue that medication is often a vital part of a broad programme of treatment because it provides a 'window of opportunity' by calming children down. Without the medication, they say, some children would simply be unable to benefit from other kinds of kinds of behavioural or therapeutic support. There are no easy answers to these dilemmas. But it is important to recognise that recommended treatment for children with ADHD generally includes a range of social, psychological and behavioural interventions. Medication is not prescribed for all children and even when it is prescribed, guidelines from the National Institute of Clinical Excellence make clear it should only be used as part of a comprehensive programme of treatment, which should always involve families and schools. It is also important to recognise that however their problems are conceptualised, the outlook for children diagnosed with ADHD can be bleak if their problems are left untreated; not only is their education likely to be seriously impaired, but poor self-esteem, relationship problems and emotional problems are likely to develop. And for families, the pressures on living with an over-active child can be particularly acute.

Does that passage read like a ringing endorsement for the controversies of ADHD?

Sure, esteemed people may write an opinion piece, or give a choice quote but most often they are talking outside of their field of expertise. There is no established minority that broadly makes the case of controversy. Furthermore, references to controversy were made a lot more frequently at the time of the Ritalin class Action Lawsuits with the rising use of medication at that time in the US. Things have changed a lot in eight to ten years. We don't have congressional hearings on ADHD medication anymore. The lawsuits all bit the dust and there now is very wide support that ADHD is a disorder that can be helped with medication. As for searches using the term controversy and ADHD...try another search using the terms "controversy and butterflies" or "controversy and gardening". This shouldn't be a justification for article inclusion into Wikipedia. After all where is the wikipedia gardening controversy article?

If this is a noteworthy topic then there should be active debate by minority and majority opinion on the controversy. What exactly is the controversy by the way? When you actually get down to it, you here that term being used with reference to medication most often. Thing is, there is no real active debate between majority and minority opinion. Demonstrate the majority or minority opinion that believes that medication is the only answer or that medication should never be used? Both sides see that it is effective, some think it should be a first line treatment and others...one of possibly many treatment options. No majority or minority opinion viewpoint believes that medication should never be used. Is that controversial? I think you could demonstrate that the use of medication in preschool children is a controversial to some degree. That is where I think you could make the best case for an existence of an article. But the title should change then and this article would need to change.

What we have seen is that this article has a lengthy history of being a coatrack. It's had many fringe viewpoints added to it, and also extraneous content. For instance what is "misconceptions about ADHD" doing in a controversy article? If the title was changed I could see a purpose for its existence. You could name this article, "Fringe theories of controversy and ADHD". Really, something needs to change here. This article shouldn't be justified merely as a collecting spot of beliefs for those who state they are being censored.--scuro (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see a feature article on the controversial nature of ADHD by say Time or the Economist or any major circulation magazine Scuro. You have to be kidding. A couple of years ago Time magazine ran a cover story on Bipolar Disorder in Children (an equally controversial subject. It was absurd in its one sidedness. SeeBipolar Disorder in Children and Adolescents: a Caution I called the reporter to complain about the inaccuracies. She was a young woman not very long out of journalism school, who immediately made it clear that she knew little about bipolar disorder, or pscyhiatry in general. She had been assigned the story, put in a week or two speaking to "experts" and now was covering an entirely different story having nothing to do with mental health. So you are claiming that an article by someone like her would officially mean this is a controversial area.

The implications of whether ADHD is, in the great majority of cases, a biological illness are enormous. Just last week a teacher who is my patient, told me about a child who was misbehaving in a hallway at school. She let him have it. Her principal called her in to explain to her that this child has ADHD and she was out of line. In the long run this is going to hurt this student. The issue is not just medication, which I have repeatedly told you I agree is often helpful. (although still used far too often) It is the belief that the child was born this way and all of the ramifications that has on parents, teachers, and the child, in terms of expectations. Self fulfilling prophecies can be devastating.

There is however, also the issue of the meds There is little question that drug companies are promoting stimulants. Cocaine was once the most used drug in the world, extolled by popes, Sigmund Freud etc. It was used by President Mckinley, Robert Lewis Stephenson (who wrote Dr. Jeckyll and Mr Hyde during a seven day and night period on cocaine.) It was freely sold in Harrads and Sears and openly advertised for its mind clearing qualities. Sherlock Holmes turned to it when he wanted to think more clearly. Thomas Edison used it regularly. People generally, love how they feel on it and how well they think. So do monkeys when they are exposed to it. They will go back and back and back for more. If Adderall (or I might add Provigil) are offered to cocaine addicted monkeys they will choose them. So this really is quite a hot topic with all kinds of implications. The promotion of "Adult ADHD" is an attempt to regain a market that had been lost during a more drug cautious era. I've written here that I get two, three,sometimes four or five mailings a week, from companies and paid "experts" trying to exploit this market niche (The very real success of some psychiatric drugs in our era and the current paradigm in academia where almost all psychiatric "illnesses" are deemed biological has made it clear to drug sellers that the time is now to get people back to cocaine like drugs.) I am not denying they can be useful, just trying to return some of the caution, and pointing out how phoney some of the research in this field has become.

Thank you ABD for briefly returning here, but I am not sure Scuro can be stopped. With all that has been presented here he has not been influenced one iota and will probably win out. I keep asking for his identity because of a growing suspicion (paranoid perhaps) that he polices this site for a living. I realize there can be other motivations besides simple corrupt manipulation, and this charge may be off base, but frankly if his one sideness is not being done for money, he is even worse off than I am claiming--Ss06470 (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Really Ss, must you attempt to sway fellow contributors by personal assassination? I've been reporting your recent behaviour. Stop before you are banned. I'd ask other contributors to speak out also about keeping the focus on content and not specific contributors.

If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, I'd also suggest staying away from personal anecdotes. While your stories illict attention they can't be used in Wikipedia. Best probably would be to use such stories sparingly to make obvious points. On the other hand personal stories work great in a blog and that might be a perfect vehicle for you.

The reason I suggested a mag like the economist is because they hire good reports and have good fact checkers. Generally the more esteemed the reporting is considered, the more likely that issue has been properly addressed. Your example of the newbie newspaper reporter working for an unknown rag is a perfect case in point. If you keep it civil and work within the framework of Wikipedia, you would be surprised by what we could accomplish.--scuro (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Scuro Do you even read what is written here? You mentioned Time Magazine. I supplied you with a true story regarding Time magazine's cover story and the nature of the person who wrote the article and you refer to that as a useless personal anecdote and refer to the reporter as working for an unknown rag. That is it. Your obtuseness knows no bounds--Ss06470 (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Scuro, you may want to re-read this section of talk, it does appear you have completely misunderstood what Ss06470 was saying. Restepc (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

misconceptions about ADHD

Not sure if this section belongs in this article. Misconceptions are not controversial. Misconception comes from a lack of understanding, not from an active debate. This section will be moved to the talk page of the ADHD with the suggestion that it be included in that article, that is unless anyone objects.--scuro (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be included in either article, it needs a lot of work though. Restepc (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

PBS/Frontline's The Medicated Child series about antipsychotic meds

The recent addition and past editing additions related to the PBS medicating kids series should probably go in the Bipolar disorder in children article. This series is about antipsychotics which are used commonly to treat BiP but not ADHD. Stimulants are mainly used to treat ADHD and the these two different classes of drugs have completely different profiles. For this reason the material has been deleted from this page but could be added to the BiP page.--scuro (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Frontline's The Medicated Child is not just about Bipolar disorder. Did you watch the show. Please do before you are so quick to eliminate it. ( It is of interest that here too Dr. Biederman was the leading point man) Ss06470 (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

From the intro and opening sentences of the medicated child webpage: "In recent years, there's been a dramatic increase in the number of children being diagnosed with serious psychiatric disorders and prescribed medications that are just beginning to be tested in children. The drugs can cause serious side effects, and virtually nothing is known about their long-term impact".

Compare that to the blurb in the updates section of the PBS series Medicating kids:"While the science develops, the treatment regimen for ADHD remains fairly consistent. To manage the symptoms, doctors continue to rely heavily on stimulant medications like Ritalin and Adderall. The stimulants, unlike most psychiatric medications, are very well-studied drugs and, at this point, well-trusted by doctors. In fact, of the twelve psychotropic medications approved by the FDA for use in kids, six are stimulants".

Ss, are you seriously trying to suggest that the more recent Medicated child series is about ADHD medication? Can we not be reasonable here and at least concede this point?--scuro (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable? Did you or did you or did you not watch the show as I asked you to do before deleting it? There is no point in carrying on a dialogue with you since you do what you please not matter what arguments are made. As always you win through your persistence. I can't waste my time with the likes of you, the same conclusion every other contributor has come to when they finally gave up. Meanwhile, your "experts" are being exposed for what they are, salesmen, under hire of drug companies with very big stakes in convincing doctors that theirs is the scientific proven point of view. The NY Time article didn't even visit the way that Dr. Biederman is part of the speakers bureau for a variety of drug companies. It isn't just research. I'll repeat what I have written in the past. I must get 3 or mailings a week promoting the use of stimulants for ADHD. It is far worse than the soap ads that used to come to people's homes. Indeed, it was this unrelenting pressure that led me to write my ADHD article. The extraordinary thing is that Harvard allowed someone in Dr. Biederman's position to use that position to impress and intimidate other doctors. Except it turns out he wasn't reporting what he was doing to Harvard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss06470 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've watched the show and it's not about ADHD medication. A direct quotation from the sources should have sufficed. Rather then speak to facts, you focus on me as a contributor and try to spin anything you can to throw a negative light on me. The evidence I presented has been ignored. If you want to tell personal stories and create a synthesis of fact, Wikipedia is not the place for you. I suggest a blog. Your behaviour has been reported once again.--scuro (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The intro was recently expanded. Editors editing this section should be familiar with WP:LEA. Info inserted should be provide an overview of the topic and not be material that normally would belong in the body of the work. I'm going to edit the intro unless I hear from someone.--scuro (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You are hearing from me. The recent revelations about the number 1 "expert", Dr. Biederman hiding the money he was getting from drug companies is very much to the point of the controversies surrounding ADHD (as I noted repeatedly!!! on these pages in the past.) It belongs there along with the statement of how drug company money was paying for the leading advocacy group for ADHD.--Ss06470 (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make a better article then at least become familiar with the conventions of Wikipedia. Once again, please read WP:LEA. You have found good information but you can't just post it willy-nilly in the lede section. I'd create a subsection entitled something like "Pharmaceutical companies support for research and advocacy group". Once you have given it some breadth and proper support then it can paraphrased succinctly in the intro. The intro is not the place to make your initial case.--scuro (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be working on the intro shortly without further input.--scuro (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, relevant information but should be moved...I'll move it now. Restepc (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A voice of reason...thank you.--scuro (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

continued removal of excellent 3rd party citation and quote and why this article continues to be biased

Recently a quote from PBS about Fred Baughman and Dr. Breggin has been repeatedly removed by other contributors. The quote from PBS describes the controversy that these critics see with ADHD: "The program touched on controversial issues including one segment, entitled backlash where Dr Fred Baughman and Dr Peter Breggin were the "outspoken critics who insist it's a fraud perpetrated by the psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries". If there is to be a controversy article it's completely ironic that contributors want to remove PBS attributing controversy and reporting on the issues. With controversial articles controversy is to be described and attributed. All has been done according to Wiki guidelines yet it is removed constantly. To censor excellent cited material that meets the criteria of a controversy article is pushing a viewpoint and is biased.--scuro (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly a minor thing I think we can agree on...what I meant by saying 'who are you quoting' wasn't exactly that it needed to be sourced (although it did), but that the quote needs to be attributed. i.e something like Dr Fred Baughman and Dr Peter Breggin who PBS described as "outspoken critics who insist it's a fraud perpetrated by the psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries".

My objection is that it doesn't make any sense to have quotes describing the people in that section, and even if it did PBSes advertising materials aren't a good choice for a reliable descriptive quote.

Two questions: Why should that quote be there? How does its absence make the section unbalanced?....actually a third question....what viewpoint am I supposed to be pushing by removing that quote?

Restepc (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the average reader could easily infer that the quote comes from PBS but it's not a big issue with me, it can be rewritten if that is your primary objection.

your questions answered:

• what viewpoint am I supposed to be pushing by removing that quote? - to hide information pushes a viewpoint as much as quoting poor sources. In both cases the objective is to obscure the truth and push a particular viewpoint. If the issue is the controversy of ADHD why shouldn't the reader know PBS's take on Baughman and Breggin?

• How does its absence make the section unbalanced? - answered already but I'll post it again for you: If there is to be a controversy article it's completely ironic that contributors want to remove PBS attributing controversy and reporting on the issues. With controversial articles controversy is to be described and attributed. All has been done according to Wiki guidelines yet it is removed constantly. To censor excellent cited material that meets the criteria of a controversy article is pushing a viewpoint and is biased..

• Why should that quote be there? - because it is an excellent secondary source which is attributing viewpoints about why ADHD is controversial. Why do you want to hide this information from the reader?--scuro (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote will be reinserted without further objections.--scuro (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the quote again if it's put back in; I have already stated my objections and don't think your argument holds water.Restepc (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

So your objection to including excellent secondary sourced material speaking specifically to the topic of the article is: that the paragraph is about the PBS show "medicating kids" and hence we can't include any reference to fraud or the only two major interviewees who made such controversial claims in the show?--scuro (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) My objection is three points.. 1 there's no need for it to be there. (the onus in wikipedia is on whoever wants to add material) 2 It makes no sense to put a quote there. 3 Even if there was a reason to put a quote there, which there isn't, PBS advertising their own show isn't a good source to quote, and the partial quote you've chosen gives a 'these guys are cranks' impression.

The views of those guys perhaps should be discussed in the article, but not by means of an advertising quote from a tv show they were on. I'll try to sort this out when I get some decent time on wikipedia. For now I will question the unbalanced tag....that I disagree with one of your edits is not a reason to have the tag on there...the section wasn't tagged before-hand, but now you've decided you want to put something in it's suddenly unbalanced without it? How is that section unbalanced? Restepc (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That you believe that the quote doesn't belong there and "makes no sense being there", is a subjective call. I disagree with you. The quote sums up the section, it is not an advertisement, as such it is valuable because it gives us PBS's take on these critics. This was and is still is the largest and most watched show ever produced on ADHD. As a contributor you have chosen to edit war over this issue, and have threatened to remove the insert if I post it again. In response I've posted the unbalanced tag in the section. The section has always been unbalanced and "protected" by contributors like Ss and Abd. Originally, we learned of only critics of ADHD and their opinions rather then how the overall media handles the subject and how often they report on controversy. Originally the subsection was mainly a list of the few notable people who believed that ADHD was controversial. Yet, the vast majority of mainstream media, and notable people do not focus on the controversy. Still, progress was being made because edits were allowed to be made to make it more encyclopedic and balanced. When progress is being made you compromise. But now, when a good quote is found that attributes viewpoint and beliefs, it's censored. Showing more then one side of an issue creates balance. Also, there is nothing wrong with article expressing a viewpoint as long as that viewpoint can be attributed to a good source hence the quotation marks.

Finally, contributors are not to remove other contributors tags. I can be reasoned with but will not be railroaded.--scuro (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I object to the assertion that I have 'chosen to edit war'; I am not the only editor to have removed that quote. Restepc (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also note that you have made similar statements repeatedly, and I have suggested that if you want to add any material stating that the "vast majority of mainstream media, and notable people do not focus on the controversy" you should be Bold and do so. I am getting a little frustrated with you accusing people of POV pushing and edit waring etc. and slapping neutrality tags on the article whenever you get into a content dispute. Restepc (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it if anyone else reading this gave their view, both on the original content dispute and especially on whether the tag should remain....that section has been tagged for a long long time now and I still can't see what's wrong with it....Restepc (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Inclusion is not based on individuals' personal standards of notability or importance. If the quote can cite a reliable source, thereby meeting WP:V, it can be included. Once information is properly sourced, the burden is on the person who wants to remove it. If there is some dispute as to the reliability of the specific source, you may want to ask someone here for help. In this particular case, I don't see a POV violation; one quote that's less than a single sentence can hardly be said to give undue weight to that opinion. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My objection to using that source isn't reliability, but more....neutrality I suppose. This is PBS advertising their show, it isn't a suitable source for neutral comments on anyones views...I believe the show at one point used the phrase 'ethically compromised' about Shire...should the article also say

"Lawrence Diller was interviewed on the business of ADHD along with a representative from "Ethically compromised" Shire Plc."

and that would be alright because it's what PBS said and according to Scuro "there is nothing wrong with article expressing a viewpoint as long as that viewpoint can be attributed to a good source hence the quotation marks."?

I mainly object to the idea of having a descriptive quote there at all, especially when it is being offered instead of the current neutral (IMV) phrasing. The views of those two people are relevant to this article (in fact I seem to remember they used to be in the article but Scuro removed them), but the place to discuss them isn't the 'Media coverage' section.....it's not the verifiability but the relevance and presentation.

There could be an argument made that there should be more detail about how that show was presented, including how PBS described each of the interviewees, but in my opinion that would just be bloating the article.

Finally, if you have the time and inclination could you look at the 'Media coverage' section as it is now....Scuro and I have discussed it at length and I can't see how it's unbalanced, perhaps someone else could explain it to me. The one specific point I've understood is that he thinks the section is unbalanced because it doesn't say how the media generally treats ADHD, but only focuses on the controversy. My response is always 'if you can find a source for how the media generally treats ADHD, put it in.' Restepc (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking everything on Wikipedia needs to be neutral. It's not as simple as that, because reality is not neutral. According to the policy, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources must be represented fairly. We should not give them undue weight, but a single quote (from a reasonably reliable source) doesn't seem to be asking too much. In fact, in this case, leaving it out verges on weasel wording; "interviewed on the legitimacy of the disorder" doesn't indicate their stance at all, and the only side served by the quote's removal is the side of ADHD supporters.

For that reason, the media coverage section could be construed as imbalanced. On the face of it, it seems to me you have two choices: remove the quote and keep the tag, or keep the quote and remove the tag. Again, if you feel PBS "isn't a suitable source for neutral comments on anyones views", you should ask for a review from the Wikiproject. Otherwise, this is just an edit war. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not PBS....but PBSes advertising. Also I'm not objecting to the inclusion of breggins and...whatsisfaces views at all, but to an advert description of them being used in that way....however I appear to be in the minority (albeit a 2-1 minority for now) so I'll put it back in...but presented more clearly. I would like to add that I don't feel I've edit warred at all, I've been discussing the tag on the talk page for months now and have tried to gain some sort of consensus about it.

It can be hard to resolve disputes on this page with only me and Scuro here, Thanks a lot for your help :) Restepc (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would call it a synopsis.

This phrase made me jump to the conclusion of edit warring: "I will remove the quote again if it's put back in". Perhaps edit warring was too harsh a phrase, my apologies. Yes you are right, we are alone in editing the article and have been working alongside each other in a spirit of cooperation. This is appreciated, thank you.--scuro (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

merging this article into ADHD article

To a degree this has already been done. Other sections could also be moved easily. One could argue that having this information on this page gives it less exposure to the general public. By moving it the ideas would be desminated more widely. One could also argue that there is no mainstream consensus or majority viewpoint that ADHD is controversial.

As I see this article now it is more like a list of ideas about anything to do with ADHD and controversy and the issues are mainly made up of minority opinion and fringe opinion. If you look at the sources provided we have a smattering of sources that indicate the disorder is controversial. No heavyweights in the field make that pronouncement. Instead of really dealing with that issue the article focuses on anything to do with controversy. So why not merge it? The important ideas will live on in the main article.--scuro (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hah! If this article only documents minority opinion on the various adhd controversies then there's something very wrong with the article, merging isn't the answer, this topic easily stands on it's own two feet. Christ, the article doesn't even mention that southpark episode. 92.4.209.88 (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading this article it's easy to see why it is tagged as biased, but hard to understand why it's remained in this state for 10 months...useless. 92.4.209.88 (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Useless would be complaints without effort to make change. Please take the the time to enlighten us where majority opinion speaks to controversial topics.--scuro (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The age old wikipedian response: you fix it. Well no. When I say I don't like a song am I offering to sing a better one? Does my being of the opinion that the editing/directing on the two Ronnies golden collection was godawful mean I'm volunteering to go down and re-edit it? I just came here in amazement that someone would think to merge this article, then browsed it more closely and saw its bias and more than that it's shortness; lack of content on a big subject. I think I gave a pretty good example of something missing from the article: . 92.4.209.88 (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the preceding "debate", I have been a long-time contributor to this subject, and recall that we spun this subject, and several others, out into sub-articles per WP:MOS due to the amount of content in the main ADHD article exceeding guidelines, not due to the nature or quality of the content about the controversial aspects. Whether the content and details can (or should) be restored in the main article is moot. There is no need to revisit the issue by considering a merge.

Regarding "lack of content on a big subject", the sub-article needing improvement is a reasonable issue to cover here. Stating "the southpark episode ...is a fair representation of public opinion of these 'conditions' seems to be a POV opinion to me. I would like to see one or more credible source(s) making that claim. And, there is plenty of room here for more information and differing POVs, but let's just follow the rules while we add/edit the article. Vaoverland (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That'd be because it IS a POV opinion, opinions usually are :) Looking through the history it seems like the pattern employed here by a particular editor has been more like remove/edit, but other than that I agree with what you say, I don't intend to work on this article, but if I do see any useful adhd stuff out there I'll try to remember to drop it here. 92.4.209.88 (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with POV content as long as we make it clear that's what it is, and attempt, or at least not block, a balance of presentation. After all, this whole article is about controversies. I will try to keep an eye here, but also am working on other stuff. However, as a WP:administrator, whenever someone brings content to me, I try to help get it included as may be appropriate. Hope that is helpful. Mark, Vaoverland (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There is something wrong with POV content in this article. If it does not fall within majority or minority opinion it doesn't really belong here. This article will not be a list, holding tank for every complaint, crackpot platform, or new age theory launching pad. You could create a separate article on anyone of these topics. For example, ADHD is the beginnings of the evolution of mankind could be a separate page, but it doesn't belong here. This article is about real controversy..--scuro (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you honestly suggesting that the view that the majority of kids labelled add/adhd (or plain old hyperactivity it used to be) would behave better even without drugs if better disciplined is too rare/out there to be included in the article? 92.4.189.47 (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I can demonstrate that the majority opinion believes ADHD exists. I can also support with citations that a well organized classroom, and a teacher who is consistent, works better for ADHD kids. Again, that would be majority opinion. Neither viewpoint is controversial so it doesn't belong in the article. It should be in the ADHD article. Now if you are implying that the label is fake, that would be a controversial opinion but it would be a fringe WP:FRINGE opinion. It doesn't belong in either article although you will find this viewpoint in the Fred Baughman article. Do you see the distinctions here?--scuro (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point, although I'm suspicious of how you've been applying it to this article, but I don't see that it applies to what I said. You appear to be dragging the conversation away from my original point: that this article is sorely lacking (and appears biased as hell to boot) and that the southpark episode/sketch is but one example of something it lacks. Furthermore, I believe I made fairly clear that I'm uninterested in fighting with you over this article, my view of the poor state of it was merely an aside to my comment on the propsed merger, my comment being in essence 'What? of course not; just beacuse the article is crap doesn't mean it should be merged' 92.4.255.139 (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're the first person that I have heard mentioning Southpark. To be honest, I don't even know what you are referring to.(Is at an episode that takes a swipe at ADHD?) That's not to say that it doesn't belong in this article or the ADHD article. There isn't anything controversial about a cartoon poking fun at stuff, unless you had protests in the streets. It should probably go in the media section of the ADHD article.

The idea of the merge is to put the good stuff in the main article where more people will see it. There is nothing wrong with putting some of the minority opinion stuff in the adhd article. Even some fringe stuff can be added if it is brief and done right. Don't get fringe and controversial mixed up. They are not the same thing. If you can, keep the personal observations out of talk. We are to focus on content and not other contributors. --scuro (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

VAoverland, could you help out with the 'citation needed' tag in the lead? The last source I put in was using the Drug Enforcement Administration but scuro still removed it...92.5.78.172 (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the citation linked to the Ritalin Death webpage which is unacceptable. It's been replaced by a PBS citation. All is well now.--scuro (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I offered three sources, all of which you rejected, the one I was referring to in my statement that you answered with 'actually...' was [67] Which actually does appear to be quoting the DEA 92.5.78.172 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want something to "stick" use the best source and never mix in obviously biased sources. Come on now...Ritalindeath!!! The PBS is by far the best source. Alls well that ends well.--scuro (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is controversy around ADHD and it should be combined with the main article.216.174.136.2 (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Info has already been combined into the main article. Especially in the medication section.--scuro (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to include some of this content in Main ADHD article

As I stated earlier, some time ago, we spun this subject, and several others, out into sub-articles per WP:MOS due to the amount of content in the main ADHD article exceeding guidelines, not due to the nature or quality of the content about the controversial aspects. Considering that, whether the content and details can (or should) be restored in the main article is really moot. There is no need to revisit the issue by considering a merge.

However, I feel that a point has been made on this page that the main article was not adequately mentioning controversies and directing readers to the sub article as it should per WP:MOS. Therefore, I have edited the Main Article to begin improving that shortcoming. You will note I have used existing content in doing so. My goal was just to keep this issue moving and be consistent with WP:MOS.

I suggest to you folks that the content presented in this (sub) article could use a lot of improvement. We should include as many resanably credible divergent positions as we can source and explain them so a reader can understand. If there are major points not mentioned in the revision I made to the Main article, we could and should include them, but this is the place to get the detailed work done. Thanks, Vaoverland (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I must disagree. The article on ADHD is not that long. Some of the info it contains is poorly sources and should be deleted. The same applies to the article on controversies. With both of them improved we will have enough info for one BALANCED article. Currently neither one is particularly balance.

Doc James (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I came to this article a little later. It was clearly a coatrack, a shopping list of numerous negative viewpoints that related to ADHD...or issues supposedly related to ADHD. There was much fringe material in here and that stuff got sorted out. Some new articles were created where some of the noteworthy fringe material was put. Some material was simply deleted because they were crackpot ideas with no traction in society. I think creating new articles for notworthy fringe theories is the better model. The fringe topics can be briefly mentioned in the ADHD article if they are noteworthy. Truly controversial issues belong in the main article and I have tried to put them there. I have read that controversial sections or articles should be avoided. Instead a criticism section should be used if that fits better. I ask why must there be a separate article which in reality is kind of lame, because in reality when we use the threshold of majority or minority opinion, not a lot of meat makes it onto the bone of this article.--scuro (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Tripdatabase

Here is a site for finding systematic reviews:

http://www.tripdatabase.com/SearchResults.html?ssid=&s=1&categoryid=&criteria=ADHD+systematic+review&sort=t

Doc James (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

"It has been said" is a term used to down play a quote and shouldn't been used. There is controversy about ADHD. That is why we have a complete page on it. One does not need to preface that It has been said there is controversy.

Here is a review articles about the controversy:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18569037?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Doc James (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, another article from the department of political science. Would you care to qualify the viewpoint you added to the article?--scuro (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding unreferenced material-black box debate

Adding unreferenced material is inappropriate. You cannot add "no further warning have been made" just because you think no further warning have been made or you haven't come across any further warning since 1996. You must reference this. Then if others editors think your reference is good we keep it. If we think the reference is bad we get ride of it. The medical new has recently been full of reports about the FDA adding a black box warning about these drugs. Stimulant use has been associated with sudden death in those with preexisting structural heart disease.

Here is the NEJM article

Nissen SE (2006). "ADHD drugs and cardiovascular risk". N. Engl. J. Med. 354 (14): 1445–8. doi:10.1056/NEJMp068049. PMID 16549404. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Doc James (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue has already been covered here in Wikipedia. You will see what I wrote was true. I think it might have been better to ask for a citation then to hack away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_treatments#Possible_harmful_side_effects --scuro (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

An interesting position

Scuro has suggested that mention of the southpark episode is better suited to the main ADHD article, I think it would be better here as it's a good illustration of the controversial nature of ADHD: that the majority of the general public believe it's simply a roundabout way of saying badly behaved. I can kinda see his point though, so what do others think, here or in the main article? 92.5.41.40 (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We should combine these two articles. Doc James (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are social critics?

Comedians? 92.5.41.40 (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Critics who have no real medical or scientific standing within the field. Peter Breggin would be a perfect example. He is long retired from Psychiatry, knows nothing about the science of brain scans, yet has plenty of opinions about the science of brain scans. With Wikipedia one is to always attribute the criticism. For some of them we could definitely label them fringe critics. Would that be better? --scuro (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just nevere heard the term before, perhaps it would be better to attribute it more accurately i.e; 'Peter Breggin and joe bloggs and 12% of Lion tamers in some poll or other' rather than 'social critics', beside the fact that labelling people critics should be avoided in most cases. 92.5.41.40 (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for a better term. Social critic is more neutral and a term that most contributors can live with.--scuro (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with you about neutrality or living with it, but I agree to find better terms where possible. 92.5.41.40 (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Here I agree completely with 92.5.41.40. What is with the word critics? It has no place in any article without being definted and referenced. I will therefore remove every reference to critics.

Doc James (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

DJ- did you forget that we are supposed attribute criticism? Read the policy. I open to other ideas.--scuro (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger

I would once again like to make clear my opposition to merging (or in any other way destroying) this article and note that it seems there is absolutely no consensus for a merge, if anything the reverse is true.92.5.41.40 (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole premise of the article rests on the idea that there is controversy. The medical and scientific bodies around the world see no controversy. There is no sharp disagreement about medication, if it is a fraud, developmental outcomes...etc. Fluffing the article up as so many try to do, simply creates a coatrack. Why the objection? If you feel strongly about the controversies wouldn't more people reading about them on the main article, be a better outcome for your viewpoint?--scuro (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I think you have the wrong end of the stick, neither my viewpoint nor yours should be in either article, they should be neutral. I object because I think there is more than enough content for both articles, it's just that the content isn't actually included yet. I would also suggest that starting from the position that there is no controversy about ADHD could be considered slightly detatched from reality. 92.5.41.40 (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There are some controversies within the scientific and medical field...mainly in the area of medication: notably about funding and giving medication to toddlers. I in fact added the toddler bit. Again, I ask why can't that exist on the main page? It can and the toddler info exists there. I'm not starting with any position or viewpoint. Show me true controversy and attribute it, and I'll put it on this page myself. Outside of the scientific and medical communities it is a free for all. Anyone can say anything, and they do. Doesn't mean it belongs on this page. Perhaps you want to create a media page and ADHD. That would give you wider latitude to include fringe viewpoints.--scuro (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I think there should be a section in the main ADHD article about it's controversial nature that links to this article, in a similar way that the global warming article has a section about solar variation yet there is still a separate article on solar variation. Also I don't think scientists have to disagree about something for it to be controversial or have controversies like the CHADD funding one surrounding it. 92.5.41.40 (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a lot of noise back when medication began to be widely used in the US. You will find most references of controversy linking back to that era. That or from England where they are now starting the same debate about controversy. Again, almost totally outside of the medical and scientific world. It gets a bit lame when most of your material for an article comes from a decade ago from the likes of Fred Baughman. In the field of psychology where 5 years is an eon. The problem with linking is that there really isn't a lot of what wikipedia would call true controversy.--scuro (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with scuro these two article should be merged. When dealing with a controversial topic that controversy should be part of the main article. I disagree however with the rest of what he says. Article discussing the contraversy due not have to be from "within the feild" What ever that means. A controversy is not part of the ADHD feild it is part of history and social aspects of ADHD. Data from the FDA and data from the therapeutics initiative belong in the main article. I recommend we continue moving the rest of this article and add a redirect. We also need to get ride of the word critics but thats another issue.

Doc James (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

DJ, let me clarify once more for you. There is majority, minority, and fringe opinion. Within the field means those who would be considered to know the most about this topic. It would be the experts and the top institutions of the world that often attract these experts. Clearly if we are going to say something in Wikipedia we want to get majority opinion and minority opinion if there is another valid viewpoint. Using your political science paper as a reference to state ADHD is the most controversial disorder ever, makes a claim from a source that clearly isn't majority opinion. We hear nothing from experts and expert bodies which would be considered as part of the majority viewpoint. Instead, we have three dudes within the political science department of Harvard write a paper, and this is to the world view of what ADHD is? It would be appreciated if we could get a little reasonableness here. Qualifying that statement would be MUCH appreciated. Thanks. --17:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As a leading neuroscientist I think Dr. (Baroness) Greenfield from Oxford is a little more than a fringe spokesman. You really do believe that there is no controversy don't you? Especially since you consistently shrink descriptions of the qualifications of critics as unnecessary. You know very well if this article is merged its most salient points will soon disappear. You are completely predictable Scuro--Ss06470 (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the merger tag if nothing changes in the debate by friday, right now I think it's about 6-2 against, and although it isn't a vote exactly, it's damn clear these articles aren't going to be merged. The discussion has however highlighted the lack of mention of controversy or this article on the main ADHD page. I suggest it would be best to have a section in the main article linking to this one, the same way the ADHD medications article is treated. 92.4.61.242 (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ss, once more with the personal attacks, talk about predictable... Dr. Greenfield is qualified but certainly not a leader in the field of ADHD research. Sure she is minority opinion and hopefully you have noticed that I haven't removed anything put in the article with regards to her. Were her qualifications shrunk in an edit? It wasn't me. As a minor minority figure you could argue that she has been given undue weight, but hey, it's not a big issue to me.

Most of the points from this article have been merged onto the main article making this one redundant. Again, one could go through the process of having this one eliminated but it's not a big issue for me. That is unless, there is a never ending attempt to turn this page into a coatrack WP:COAT. Repeated attempts of adding coatrack material may well be grounds in the future for eliminating this article. You are wrong SS, I see a few minority controversial issues that are truly citable. I wrote one up myself. Check it out on the ADHD treatment page. I wrote the section on medicating toddlers. Predictable indeed!--scuro (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If we had editors who could agree on a balance then we could merge the two article. But it looks like the divide is too great. And editors are pushing POV to strongly. Yes I sort of get the feeling the Scuro would love to delete the whole thing. He has stated multiple time that the ADHD controversy doesn't exist. I can understand completely how you feel he is just wanting to eliminate the article. Doc James (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Another example of the assumption of bad faith. Worse, Jmh are putting words in my mouth that are not truthful.--scuro (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, kids, be nice. About the merge, very, very bad idea. There are two topics, one is a medical one, one is a social and political one. Merging the two articles will institutionalize a natural tension between these two. Medical and science topics should generally depend upon peer-reviewed studies and the like, very solid sources as to quality of content. Political and social topics can allow, and should allow, notable opinion from notable sources, not only solid scientific or academic research and analysis. I'm coming to a point where I think that Scuro should probably stay away from the Controversies article, for the most part; (but it is nevertheless appropriate for him to point out POV imbalance in this article, where fringe opinion is presented as fact, if that happens). This article is the place to put controversy, depending on verifiable opinion; controversy is inherently about opinions; we require that the opinions be notable, i.e., they should be from an expert, or a public figure (an example of this, a blast from the past, would be the opinions of Peter Hitchens, also known as User:Clockback. He is by no means an expert on ADHD, and his views have little to do with scientific consensus, but they are notable, by virtue of being published in a major publication. Generally, opinion should be attributed and sourced; sometimes we have sloppily allowed weasel words, but that should only be a stopgap measure. (I.e, we know it's true, believe it is verifiable, but don't have the source yet; anything like this should have a cn tag slapped on it immediately, if it isn't taken out.)

Sure, often controversy is included in the basic article; but where the controversy is extensive, with lots of variety and sources, on a topic where there is a mainstream consensus, that can create imbalance, not to mention constant edit wars over a question very difficult to find consensus on: where is the exact balance?

With this article being well-developed and sourced, a summary of it can go back into the ADHD article; that summary will not have excessive detail, and it need not have -- and probably should not have -- sources, for all the sources would be here. The summary itself should enjoy broad consensus, and, it should go without saying, the summary should have a deep consensus behind it.

I think that much of the conflict here has been over a misunderstanding of the difference between medical/science articles and social/political articles. Material can go into this article that would be utterly unacceptable in the ADHD article, and keeping that material out because of strict adherence to WP:RS for science articles, will, indeed, make this article imbalanced, not to mention far less informative and interesting.

And, of course, putting that less-solidly-sourced material into the ADHD article is likely to create imbalance. Take it out and those supporting the criticism will cry "censorship!" But if this article is well developed, and welcomes new verifiable and relevant material, we can say to such an editor, "Your work and contributions in this line will be welcome at the Controversies article." We probably need a FAQ on this, or it will continue to come up and we will need to explain it over and over. --Abd (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I used to think that the two articles should be combined but now that you have explained things and I have come to realized the volume that can be written about the controversy I agree that these two topics should be separated.

Some stuff like the lack of long term data on the safety and effectiveness of ADHD meds however is not controversial. All sides of the research community agrees that there is no long term safety data. That is why I find it strange that this has become such an issue.

By the way I appreciate your in depth comments.

Doc James (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of the lead

The 'lead needs rewriting' tag has been on this page for a while, so I'm rewriting it.

If anyone objects to any part of what I write I suggest they use or or whatever tags rather than simply reverting. I think we can all agree that the current lead isn't great, so let's try moving forward to a new one rather than reverting. Bear in mind that what you read may be partially a work in progress, so discussing changes here would be better than three people trying to write it in different ways at once. I am aware that currently citations are missing, for now I'm just writing something that follows the lead guidelines and will put in citations later/next. I think that most of what I'm writing is already cited later in the article, but if you can't see it and object to it then tag it.

Here I'm going to put information I've cut out of the lead, but think should be worked into the article sections. In fact I've put everything cut from the lead here so no-one worries that anything has been deleted or lost. "While stimulant medications are widely considered safe when used as prescribed, critics point to the the UN's International Narcotics Control Board issued warnings in 1996 and the dramatically increased use of methylphenidate at that time in the United States although the use of medication has since leveled off." "can be better explained by other theories such as the Hunter vs. farmer theory. Other critics such as those critics who believe in the social construct theory of ADHD disagree over the cause of ADHD, question research methodologies are skeptical toward its classification as a mental disorder, and wonder about the effects of diagnosis on the mental state of patients. Critics point to changing standards of diagnosis, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issuing a more careful set of standards in 2000 to aid clinicians than merely using DSM-IV. Certain religions and groups, especially Scientology also hold viewpoints about the disorder. Scientologists are against almost all aspects of psychiatric practice, and are highly skeptical that the diagnosis denotes a genuine impairment. Conversely, those critical of Scientology believe that much of the controversy generated about ADHD is manufactured."

92.5.155.82 (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm particularly not liking the 'despite being' part, it sounds weaselly/dismissive/POV, but I can see why someone put it there for balance. I'll leave it for now. 92.5.155.82 (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The way it should be done is to put a POV tag on the sentences you don't like or the whole section. Then you post a new lead in here and it is vetted and possibly improved upon. If someone disagrees with your editing you need to post in talk first, not slash and burn and deal with it after the fact. --scuro (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again Scuro this is not how it works.--Doc James (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. I am referring to wiki guidelines once two editors disagree.--scuro (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple and large scale editing

With a controversy page it is a good idea to "telegraph" what you are going to do if you are making large changes or multiple changes. This gives other editors who have been involved with an article for a lengthy period of time, to discuss why things are the way they are. I'm not stating that some or most of the changes are not good, it just needs to be talked about before it is done, that holds especially true if an editor(s) disagrees with the changes.--scuro (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh for petes sake, That's not how wikipedia works at all, no-one has the right to veto changes and bulk reverting should not be done. YOU did not discuss your recent major change to the first sentence before doing it. I'm undoing your revert on the grounds that it's a misplaced bulk revert, you even admit that you're throwing the good bits out with the (allegedy) bad, if you disagree with individual parts, change those, but don't change the whole thing BACK to a messed up lead which has been tagged as needing work for god knows how long. And don't try to characterise this as an edit war or disruptive editing and start threatening me with administrators noticeboard, it won't bother me in the slightest. 92.4.133.155 (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll point out in case you missed it that I started a section here to discuss the changes. I suggest telling us what your objections are, what you'd propose instead (because the old version doesn't meet the LEAD/MOS guidelines), and most importantly what it is that you're actually objecting to....you say 'see talk' when changing the image, but there's nothing here about it to see...

Let's take the image for example, I think you'd agree that the use of stimulant medication (and ritalin is the one everyone's heard of) is one of the biggest controveries about ADHD. So I'd say that a picture of a ritalin pill is....better than no image for this page which is about the controversies. The brain scan image is as far as I can see, nothing whatsoever to do with any of the controversies (medication? alternative theories? funding of stimulant proponents?) and doesn't really fit on this article. What's your objection to the pill and support for the brain scan? 92.5.98.114 (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There were a lot of bad edits in there. Bulking reverting was easier. I will stop this practice if you post in talk before editing and I can do likewise. The edit to the lead sentence came from someone else. Lets do talk about the image. Ritalin has been shown to be the safest and most effective drug for any sort of mental disorder. No scientific body or medical body will state that the biggest controversy with ADHD is Ritalin. I'd be more happy with no image or how about a protest image?--scuro (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

you were happy that the brain scan image was an illustration of ADHD controversies but there aren't any controversies involving stimulant medication? 92.5.98.114 (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell no! Medicating toddlers could be considered a controversial issue but that isn't about Ritalin, it's about another issue. Sure you may have read some websites that state therapeutic use of Ritalin causes brian shrinkage, drug addiction, mental illness...or what not. But all of the claims are without foundation and would qualify as WP:FRINGE fringe opinion. So what is the best image? Perhaps it is the brain scan image because you do have a tiny minority of professional people questioning the existence of ADHD. --scuro (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm reinserting the image on the grounds that you've failed to provide any sensible argument, we have an article on the ritalin class action lawsuits that you might find helpful if you're truly unaware of ritalins involvement/relevance to many of the controversies. 92.1.168.244 (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Scuro you are unbelievable. I agree with the previous user. As I stated below you think anything you do not agree with is WP:FRINGE. You think that the only contraversy there might be would be the medication of toddlers? That makes me laugh. How blind you are to what has been writen. The contraversy is within psychiatry. Within the governement. Within the church. Within the medical community. Among parents and teachers. Among the drug treatment and regulators. By your definition I guess that all of these are fring groups I assume. Who is the majority...Doc James (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Doc James you may believe something but that certainly doesn't make it so. Wikipedia standards require verifiabilityWP:V. You are new, perhaps you don't know how wikipedia defines controversy. WIki sees controversy as a true majority opinion vrs minority opinion disagreementWP:UNDUE. You say you see it everywhere. Give us an example then in the medical community. Majority viewpoint on this issue would go to the pillars of society: the educational institutions, the courts, the medical institutions..etc. Doc, you need to tone it done and not be so inflammatory. We can discuss content in a reasonable manner without focusing on the other contributor.--scuro (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)