Snailgoop

Welcome!

Hello, Snailgoop, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Sifaka ^talk 08:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Making a new article out of the Clinical Research Involving Children section

I think the Clinical Research Involving Children is an independent enough topic from ADHD with enough debate that it probably warrants its own article. I checked around for a section in an existing article involving children in clinical research and came up blank. You should use the text from ADHD controversies to get it started and then shop around for appropriate tags by going to related topics, like clinical trial, and copying theirs (or ask for help tagging your article). I'd start it myself, but I feel like I would be stealing your glory since you wrote all the text. In any case the guide on writing a new article is here Wikipedia:Your first article. Sifaka ^talk 08:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ADHD

You took a reference that said one thing and changed it completely without changing the ref. What is now written is not supported by the ref. Therefore undid your change.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref formatting

This tool can help you properly format your references. http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi?ddb=&type=pubmed_id&id=18584000 Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is actually very easy to do. You past the PMID into the box and it gives you the formatting. This links the reference to pubmed and links to a free copy if available. It is the courteous think to do so that someone doesn't have to come after you and format the reference properly. Also please reference the peer reviewed literature rather than people personal pages. Cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not so much the source but the lack of linking to an online copy of what is reffed. Look at the other references. WRT Barkleys, ADHD is a controversial topic. If we all started quoting self proclaimed experts this page could once again turn into a complete disaster.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Doc James. I appreciate your sentiments but your fear is unfounded. It's better to be flexible and judicious, in my educated opinion, when dealing with this kind of material in this particular setting. In the case of referencing Russell Barkley, we're on pretty solid ground. Also, keep in mind that he's not a "self-proclaimed" expert. He is an expert, a well-established one.--Snailgoop (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Still it is better to reference peer reviewed literature. Barkley has many personal conflicts of interest, including his well known funding from the pharmaceutical industry. He represents a very American and pro drug take on ADHD.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Barkley does represent a "very American and pro drug take on ADHD" but he also represents the great majority of scientific evidence supporting combined medication and behavioral management as the most effective treatment for ADHD. If it is important, for the most part, for the average Wikipedia user to cite peer-reviewed research, then such an assumed position warrants equitable (and therefore substantial) respect for the empirical foundations underpinning peer-reviewed research. Otherwise, demanding strict adherence to citing peer-reviewed research in the references section would be no more than a sham. More specifically, if respect is afforded to empirical science, then it follows that such respect should be given to the majority of the findings of empirical science. One could reasonably argue that Barkley is nothing short of militant in his adherence to logical positivism. As such, quoting his best estimate in regard to the research from his personal page is not automatically an infraction worthy of deletion. Do you see my point? There is no real sense in demanding an empirical foundation to the article and at the same time holding a strong resentment toward its accompanying ideology, which Barkley happens to represent. Given Barkley's investment in his personal reputation as a leading authority on ADHD, his personal page is unlikely to risk intellectual dishonesty. I should note that I do have some concern regarding your personal viewpoint, which you have used as the foundation of your argument against Barkley, namely that there is not a clear basis for any of it. To say he is "very American" and "pro drug," well then, so what? What is the problem with being an American? Is your argument rational and reasonable or is it merely reflective of anti-American bias? Furthermore, what is the problem with being "pro-drug" when such a great majority of empirical research demonstrates its efficacy? --Snailgoop (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It can be better to reference peer-reviewed literature but that is not always the case, particularly on a site like Wikipedia. Much of the peer-reviewed literature on ADHD is funded by pharmaceutical companies, so it's hard to get away from that. I agree with you that Barkley is the hardest slant out there in terms of a scientific approach to ADHD but that's also one reason why in this case use of his reference should pass muster. What might be considered, on your part, is the possibility of editing the text to include concerns regarding that slant. It makes for a richer article.

One more thing and I'm not going to try to revolutionize Wikipedia but the way that I see it is that a good majority of people who come to Wikipedia aren't capable of reading and analyzing peer-reviewed literature. It's not uncommon for a person to pick up a scholarly journal and immediately put it down again because the literature is too complex to understand. I personally hope that Wikipedia does not become a place with such strict scholarly standards that is too difficult to understand for the layperson. Part of the charm of Wikipedia is that it is a simple, easy to read encyclopedic source. The information within in it can be refined but it will never be an adequate scholarly source of information, nor should it. Nonetheless, like you, I do care about high standards and in referencing Barkley, I simply used my best judgment.--Snailgoop (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hitchens's razor

The "proper" possessive spelling for Hitchens depends on the local. In this case it is Hitchens's not Hitchens' If someone leaves a comment to that effect with a link, please take a bit of time to check the link before changing the spelling? Please see MOS:POSS #1: Add 's: James's house, Sam Hodges's son, Jan Hus's life, Vilnius's location, Brahms's music, Dickens's novels, Morris's works, the bus's old route. Also, if the spelling is started a specific way in an article, i.e. British English v. American English that spelling should be retained (unless of course, an American-based article which was started with Canadian English. Please see wp:Manual of Style/Spelling Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)