Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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[1]. --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 [2] 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)

helpful links

I assume (hope) DJ won't mind me copying what he wrote on the main ADHD article talk page here, as I think it contains some useful resources.

"Here are some more links about the controversy. But I am sure they will not do as Scuro has his own beliefs.

First is a textbook on Developmental Psychopathology that describes the controversy well. This is a secondary source. http://books.google.com/books?id=UlQjE-Ka09sC&pg=PA358&dq=ADHD+controversy&ei=WivjSJLXF4TkygS_3I3iBA&sig=ACfU3U1RIgDI45e5ETkBaR8iWd929M1ysA#PPA358,M1

Next is the cyclopedia Britannica. Yes even more famous then wikipedia. It has a section on the controversy. This is a tertiary source. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/279477/attention-deficithyperactivity-disorder/216017/Controversy-mental-disorder-or-state-of-mind

Medscape discusses it. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/442882_5

How about the US government. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/adhdsum.htm

Another well know site. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=50774

The controversy is even discussed in the BJP. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/184/5/453

I know all these refers boil down to three political science profs to Scuro but... maybe they would actually provide a more balance picture of the who thing. That's just me though I think some people have already made up their minds. --Doc James (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.168.244 (talk)

Lead

This page is about the controversy of ADHD and therefore the lead should reflect that. It does not need to start by talking about what ADHD is. ie. It does not and should not start with the same line as the ADHD page.

I have provided references from the medical community in the above section for Scuro to look at.

--Doc James (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

NICE guidelines

Here is something more recent that writing about the ADHD controversy. It is published by the NHS and is endorsed by the UK government and the UK psychiatrists. It was published in Sept, 2008.

It speaks about all areas of the ADHD controversy and would count as an excellent secondary source.

http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG72FullGuideline.pdf

--Doc James (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it normal for governments and psychiatric associations to endorse draft papers?--scuro (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

airforce amphetamine use

interesting issue. Were the pilots being treated for ADHD? Was the medication prescribed to someone for ADHD? If not I don't see that this is relevant to this article, although it might go in the article on amphetamines.--Vannin (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

One area of the ADHD controversial pertains to the none specific action of stimulants. They work to improve performance in all people not just those who have ADHD. This brings us to a philosophical debate similar to what we see with steroids in sports.

Some physicians use a response to ADHD medication to help make an ADHD diagnosis.--Doc James (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But this doesn't answer the question about the airforce example. This particular off label use really has nothing to do with adhd. The military have been using stimulants for a long time, even before people were diagnosing adhd. This may be a controversy about stimulants, but then would not go in this article, which is ADHD controversies. Now if the stimulants were prescribed to someone for adhd, say a college student faking the symptoms to get the medication in order to study longer hours, then I think it would be relevant here. I do not know how the point about response to medication logically fits into this particular discussion, so will not address it at this point. --Vannin (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that these pilots respond to ADHD medications even though they do not have ADHD. And that these meds are used for this non specific response. The none specific nature of ADHD drugs causes some of the controversy arround the condition.

It is similar to the controversy arround steroids. We now have steroid wrestling and none steroid wrestling. Should we have the same for school. Amphetamine school and none amphetamine school. In a competitive world are steroid fair when used in the sports? Are amphetamines fair when used in school when some kids take them to gain an accedemic adventage when other kids are not? Both steroids and amphetamines are restricted drugs.

Both these are philosophical issues. Some feel steroids should be allowed others feel they shouldn't. The same applies to ADHD. There is a great documentary called bigger, stronger, faster that touches on the steroid issues and mentions ADHD aswell.

Here is an interesting issue http://www.slate.com/id/2118315/ --Doc James (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've made your case effectively, because this really is an off-label use of the stimulants. Stimulants exist whether or not ADHD exists and use by the military has gone on for quite some time regardless of the issues with adhd. Now that can be covered in an article on stimulants. The philosophical "debt" (I confess I just love that malapropism :) ) that you are talking about relates to medication in general, not just ADHD. Shouldn't we just allow people with Major Depressive Disorder to commit suicide? Why give them the advantage of feeling good by using anti-depressants? Yes it is an interesting point, but it doesn't really fit into the article on ADHD, although it could go into one entitled "Philosophical Issues Around Medication", if you had the references for it. --Vannin (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is actual a bit different than antidepressants. Antidepressants do not make everyone who takes them happy. And on a side note they do not work for those who are mild, moderately, or severely depressed either. See depression page.

Stimulants are more like steroids. The are non specific in there action. I do agree that the wording was poor. Will work on phrasing the argument more clearly. Doc James (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd disagree with you here as would the literature. Stimulants significantly reduce ADHD symptoms which have nothing to do with normal behaviour. The action is specific. While you may state that everyone focuses better on stimulants, that doesn't really touch on behaviour, after all ADHD is a behavioural disorder and we see that in school settings where hyperactive adhd kids have few if any friends, and these kids are constantly scored as being disruptive and not able to contain their own behaviour both physically and verbally. Medication allows these kids to function normally and again this has been documented. They don't turn into zombies, as we often hear from scientology, they act normal. Zombies can't make friends nor do they typically do well in school. So the drug works specifically on the symptoms and the action of the drug has been shown to work at the neuron level to allow reuptake to occur in a more natural manner.--scuro (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#Non_specific_nature

Now I know both of these studies are old and have small numbers. But no one has repeated these studies with larger numbers. Which makes me suspect that the results are therefore agreed with. No one in the medical community I think is yet at a point of considering giving these drugs to normal children to improve performance but they have broadened the diagnosis at least in North America. Lots of normal people do however take them in uncontrolled situations which lead some credibility to the conclusion that they help with academics performance.Doc James (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Current RFC

Given the current on-going RFC, this is not the time to make over 30 changes in one day. And it is not the time to go back to an old version of the article--Vannin (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the issue isn't the RfC, but the capacity of this community handle that edit volume. However, I don't see this as a serious problem. WP:BRD. If an edit seems harmful even from a glance, revert it and it will be discussed, assuming that the one reverting it starts up a discussion. That can be as simple as: "I didn't trust that this was adequate and I'd like it reviewed before it is accepted." And for convenience, the text can be shown.

jmh649, today, made six edits, I was, at first, a little taken aback, given all that's been said. However, looking at them, they really should not be controversial, unless I missed something. It's actually better that he separated out each edit instead of making many small edits in one single session. That way, we can simply accept what seems harmless at the worst, and discuss specifically, and/or revert, what may be doubtful. If, however, these little discussions start piling up, then there is a problem with our capacity to handle too much material at once, and I, for one, would ask him to slow down -- or might start reverting simply on that basis.

But what about what happened on Nov. 17? He made 41 edits on that day. Is that excessive? It depends on the nature of the edits. I can look at them all with one diff:[3] When I started to do this, I was struck by how much at least some of these edits improved the article. And much of it was well-sourced; I have not read the sources, but WP:AGF folks: our presumption should be that sources are being adequately reflected in the text based on them, until and unless we discover otherwise. He added a series of new sections, doing it piecemeal, which is actually better than making one huge edit, because it makes it easy to accept what's fine or at least harmless and to revert what is problematic, thus making our discussion more focused.

Now, if we each had some obligation to, personally and individually, check all of this, it could be overwhelming. Does Doc James have a history of falsifying sources? If so, we've got a problem. But I don't think I saw allegations of that. (Active editors, even very good editors, have been sanctioned by ArbComm for falsifying sources, even when the falsification was quite possibly not intentional.) If he continued making changes on this level, it would be, again, a serious problem, because we'd never catch up. But he won't and probably couldn't if he wanted to. I intend to check his work, but probably not all tonight, and anyone else can. If we wanted to make this efficient, we'd take assignments, i.e., "I'll check this section, you check those sections, and, of course, Scuro, if he wants to, would likewise contribute and any of us could -- and should -- check anything suspicious." Does the USAF use stimulant drugs? I haven't read the source, but it is (1) plausible and (2) they've been used for military purposes for a long time, I know that as a piece of general knowledge. So I'm not giving a high priority to checking that. Collectively, we will catch anything seriously astray.

I've advised Doc James to move more slowly, and, politically, that's probably a good idea. And, of course, if anyone doubts any of his edits, reverting it is a possibility, it's quick and easy, we'd then discuss it before it goes back in (though someone who has thoroughly checked it might decide to revert it back, if the removal didn't give a clear reason that checked out). He will not use bald reversion as a way of insisting on his text. He will not edit war. He won't insist at all. He will be clear and civil in discussion, staying on point, patiently explaining his reasoning, trusting our consensus, and allowing sufficient time for that to form. Right, Doc? --Abd (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. I will slow down if needed. A lot of the edits I make however are formatting of references. There isn't much more that needs to be added in my opinion. I am not sure about others but I think that this article is close to balanced. For example we comment that the AAP say stimulants are first line then follow up by saying there is not good long term evidence for them. And that they are not recommended in preschoolers. None of this is controversial and all of it is well supported. I provides the reader a clear picture.

I am a scientist and physician through and through. If someone finds a study or does a study that show long term safety and improved outcomes over many years in a large group of patients then I would be easily swayed. I would even consider prescribing them more frequently. But I need trial evidence. I have been lead seriously astray by expert advice. I do not care if Dr. Barkley says it. I reply show me the evidence. ie show me what he has published. Doc James (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Another good source on the ADHD controversy

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/9/2/9/pages209292/p209292-9.php Doc James (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow again! That book covers a lot of stuff that I'd said in Talk, here, but didn't have RS for. It goes deeply into the controversy, in a very neutral manner, explaining why there is controversy without blaming the various players. This is, again, golden for our purposes with the Controversies article. The source cited is a manuscript, the book was "forthcoming," to be published by Harvard University Press. The page lists this under Suffer the Restless Children: ADHD, Psychostimulants, and the Politics of Pediatric Mental Health; however, that is the title of a paper by Rick Mayes, delivered as a paper to the American Political Science Association in 2007. The title of the forthcoming book, which has Mayes as one of the authors, is Medicating Children: ADHD and Pediatric Mental Health. Harvard University Press lists the scheduled publication date as January, 2009. Is that going to be recent enough? Amazon is selling it,[4], "usually ships in 3-4 weeks," though the publication date is listed as January 15, 2009. There are many interesting reviews from notable authors or experts quoted on the Amazon site. For example: "Medicating Children is superb, a tour de force. If you want the most balanced, informed, and sane view on the use of medication in children who have ADHD, read this book." --Edward Hallowell, M.D., author of Delivered from Distraction and Driven to Distraction. I'm going to buy it.... Thanks again, Doc James. --Abd (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it. Meanwhile, I found the following from Doc James, on the 17th, to be one of the best paragraphs to hit this article, ever:

Researchers from McMaster identified five features of ADHD that contribute to its controversial nature: 1) it is a clinical diagnosis for which there are no laboratory or radiological confirmatory tests or specific physical features; 2) diagnostic criteria have changed frequently; 3) there is no curative treatment, so long-term therapies are required; 4) therapy often includes stimulant drugs that are thought to have abuse potential; and 5) the rates of diagnosis and of treatment substantially differ across countries.

This is the source:[5]. This was a systematic review of the literature by the McMaster University Evidence-based Practice Center. It's worth quoting from the introduction:

In June 1997, the US Department of Health and Human Services announced the start of a new program through which AHCPR would award contracts to institutions in the US and Canada to serve as evidence-based practice centres (EPCs). The mission of these EPCs, of which McMaster University is one, is to review all the relevant scientific literature on health care topics assigned to them by AHCPR. The main task of the EPCs is to produce “evidence reports” that will serve as the scientific foundation for public and private sector organizations to develop clinical practice guidelines and other strategies for improving the quality of the health care services. The first set of topics was nominated by a group of academic, public, and private sector organizations in response to a solicitation published by AHCPR in November 1996. In September 1997, the AHCPR charged the McMaster EPC to conduct a comprehensive systematic review of the literature on the treatment of ADHD. This topic was nominated by the AAP and the APA.

First, the McMaster EPC assembled a multidisciplinary research team, with participation of the nominating organizations (all members of the subcommittee of the AAP on ADHD and the Deputy Medical Director of the APA), consumer groups, local experts, the task order officer from the AHCPR, and research staff. This group engaged in multiple consultations and identified the following questions to be addressed by the evidence report: 1) What is the evidence from comparative studies on the effectiveness and safety, both short- and long-term, of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for ADHD in children and adults? and 2) Are combined interventions more effective than individual interventions?

A formal critical appraisal of existing systematic reviews and metaanalyses on the treatment of ADHD would provide an excellent opportunity to avoid duplication of work and to make efficient use of the resources available. This article describes such a process, which was used as the basis for a full report of a state-of-the-art systematic review to be released in late 1999 (http://www.ahcpr.gov). The data reported here will help those interested in the role of systematic reviews and metaanalyses in guiding ADHD treatment decisions.

The paragraph was taken from the introduction to the article. This is there:

Prevailing opinions regarding the validity of ADHD vary, from those who regard it as a myth (4,5) to those who believe that underlying genetic and physiological evidence support its existence (6). Several features of ADHD contribute to the controversy: 1) it is a clinical diagnosis for which there are no laboratory or radiological confirmatory tests or specific physical features; 2) diagnostic criteria have changed frequently; 3) there is no curative treatment, so patients require long-term therapies; 4) therapy often includes stimulant drugs that are thought to have abuse potential; and 5) the rates of diagnosis and of treatment substantially differ across countries, particularly Britain, Australia, Canada, and the United States (US) (1,2,6,7). The debate around the existence of ADHD is compounded by important variations in estimates of prevalence and frequency with which comorbid disorders are identified in patients with ADHD.

Against this background, it is not surprising to find wide variation and controversy around the treatment of ADHD. In fact, the variability in treatments around North America led to the development of practice parameters by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) (1) and has motivated the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to develop clinical practice guidelines. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is currently contemplating how to use the available information in the development of quality improvement projects.

Given the exactness of quote, it should be placed in quotes to reflect the exact quotation. The study is, indeed, nine years old, but as to what has been quoted in the article, I'm not aware of any changes in that time. Those factors that support controversy still exist. What we have here is a source, not only for the controversy, but for what causes the controversy, that's golden, we often don't get that good an analysis for controversial topics. There are, of course, other causes that contribute to the controversy, such as political agendas, but without the characteristics that the McMaster study describes, they wouldn't get much traction. Now, was this source used before? I couldn't find a trace of it in the Talk archives. WTF have we been, with such a source available? I then noticed that it's cited in the ADHD article, having been put there by Doc James with [6]. It probably belongs in this article, not directly in the ADHD article, though it is certainly strong enough, practically unimpeachable, except for its age, which is hardly extreme. Thanks, Doc James, for finding it and putting it in. --Abd (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant article

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030318

Will add info from it. --Doc James (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)----

None specific action

Posted previously that no one would recommend stimulants for general use. I am however wrong and a number of scientist are doing just this and got it published in nature.--Doc James (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Better page about the ADHD controversy

This seems to be a copy of the ADHD controversy page however it is better in many ways.

http://www.nationmaster .com/encyclopedia/Controversy-about-ADHD

--Doc James (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have found were I came from. It is as old copy of this page. One that was present before Scuro started editting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies&oldid=92941637

--Doc James (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, talk about gutting an article. Unomi (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Scuro

--24.151.119.232 (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Dr James I've returned for a look after several months absence. I too am a psychiatrist and was eventually driven off by Scuro who I see remains here guarding these pages. I am very suspicious of his motives. That will make him ballistic but I am nearly convinced he is not a devoted independent editor My suspicion is that he will also win with you. After a while you realize you are wasting good time trying to take him on

I am stubborn and not going anywere :-) As long as everyone sticks to the best sources no problems will occur.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving this page

This present talk page includes comments from the end of September 2008 to today, which is OK.

I've likely missed something, but it looks to me that Archive 1:February 2008 includes comments from about May 2006 to November 2008. It contains 562 kilobytes. Isn't that too huge? Some of it was moved there 28 March 2009 by Jmh649.

Seems to me that someone who knows how to do it, should divide up the present Archive and label the sections correctly. - Hordaland (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fell free to rearrange. If was too slow the way it was. I know you can use auto archives.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

[Here] it says:

• Automated archival MiszaBot and ClueBot III can automatically create cut-and-paste archives for any discussion page (one that has "talk" in the namespace), by moving sections to a subpage when they have received no comments for a specified period of time. See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo or User:ClueBot III#How to archive your page for instructions on setting this up. Note: Make sure to establish consensus before setting up MiszaBot or ClueBot III on a talk page other than a user talk page.

I've never used either of these. Wonder what's the diff, as in why do we need two? Anyway, there must be consensus, which means more than just you'n'me. - Hordaland (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Which ever. Makes no difference to me. Usually one just makes changes and if no one complains or discusses the issue it is assumed that consensus was obtained. :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy in the concerns about the impact of labeling section

I removed the following lines because they state nothing that hasn't already been said above or in other sections. Sifaka ^talk 05:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
"There is concern about the effects of an ADHD diagnosis on the mental state and self-esteem of patients. There is disagreement over the cause of ADHD and there are questions about research methodologies , and skepticism toward its classification as a mental disorder."

Crosschecking references

1. Adult ADHD is even more controversial with the evidence being stronger for its non-existance than for its existance. Stimulant medications are also ineffective in the treatment of adult ADHD.

This conflicts with our article on ADHD and adult ADHD which has sources about the existence of adult ADHD. Also, I found a few more recent studies suggesting that stimulant treatment of adults with ADHD is effective at least the short-term.Sifaka ^talk 22:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think that debunking or disputing secondary sources eg a review article with a primary source is not in keeping with reliable sources guidelines, Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Do you have a review article or meta-analysis which talks about Adult ADHD? I don't think that the ref should have been deleted based on primary sources disputing it considering it actually reviewed primary sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you assessment. Disputing sources is a good idea because scientific paradigms shift, ADHD especially. I found Liu to be less than appealing as a source because there are a large number of very respected studies that come to the opposite conclusion which are well cited. Google scholar doesn't have any citations attributed to him. In short, there is no contest about which is more reliable. (Edit:) After reading these, I think that the current consensus is that Adult ADHD seems to exist and that stimulant meds do work at least in the short term. There is, however, more uncertainty than in childhood ADHD. Sifaka ^talk 23:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources which examine the prevelance of Adult ADHD and conclude it definitely exists

Ronald C. Kessler, Ph.D., Lenard Adler, M.D., Russell Barkley, Ph.D., Joseph Biederman, M.D., C. Keith Conners, Ph.D., Olga Demler, M.A., M.P.H., Stephen V. Faraone, Ph.D., Laurence L. Greenhill, M.D., Mary J. Howes, Ph.D., Kristina Secnik, Ph.D., Thomas Spencer, M.D., T. Bedirhan Ustun, M.D., Ellen E. Walters, M.S., and Alan M. Zaslavsky, Ph.D. The Prevalence and Correlates of Adult ADHD in the United States: Results From the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, Am J Psychiatry 163:716-723, April 2006 - a very heavily cited by others work (333 according to Google scholar), The estimated prevalence of current adult ADHD was 4.4%

Evidence-based guidelines for management of attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder in adolescents in transition to adult services and in adults: recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology Journal of Psychopharmacology, 21(1) (2007) 10–41 - a consensus statement by British Association for Psychopharmacology

A review of the pharmacotherapy of adults with Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder. Journal of Attention Disorders, Vol. 5, No. 4, 189-202 (2001) DOI: 10.1177/108705470100500401 - Methods: A systematic review of the literature identified 15 studies (N = 435 subjects) of stimulants, and 22 studies of non- stimulant medications (N = 421 subjects) including antidepressants, antihypertensives, amino acids, and wake-promoting agents for the treatment of ADHD in adults. Conclusions: Under controlled conditions, the aggregate literature shows that the stimulants and noradrenergic antidepressants had a clinically and statistically significant beneficial effect on treating ADHD in adults.

Devon A. Sherwood, PharmD, and Jose A. Rey, PharmD, BCPP Pharmacological Agents for the Treatment of Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Review of the Literature. DOI: 10.1177/0897190007300727 2006; 19; 3 Journal of Pharmacy Practice - Conclusion: "Stimulant medications remain the mainstay of treatment in adult ADHD today."

I am going to redelete those lines, but if you still feel that decision isn't right, we should call for a request for comment instead instead of getting into a revert war. Sifaka ^talk 23:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood me, I was not saying don't challenge references, I was just saying I would like secondary sources (preferably more recent ones) and you have given me review articles which are more current and uptodate. I am happy with your revert of my edits. I think that this content dispute is now resolved. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't think you would revert my edits without a good cause, and I am glad you challenged my revert in the first place. The only reason I brought up RFC is that if there was a dispute, I would rather call in a third party than get into a revert war and I decided to make it clear from the onset that I would do so. I worked on this article a while back and the atmosphere was a lot more contentious than it is now. I suppose that particular decision is a holdover from those "rougher times." I'm glad it has cooled off a bit since then. I don't miss the protracted arguments. (Edit) I did miss your point about using primary sources against secondary ones. That's a good guideline and I will make sure to remember it in the future. Sifaka ^talk 01:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is fine, I understand why you said about RfC. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

coatrack/biased article

As predicted the article has become a coatrack again. I've added the POV tag.--scuro (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a co track there is more information on the controversial than could reasonable fit on the main page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted for failure to outline problems with references or articles on talk page. You can't just say the article is biased and flag it. Do remember the article is on controversies so don't expect the article to be singing praises of ADHD and medications. Also when disputing articles, please cite sources for your dispute. Wikipedia works via reliable sources rather than readers opinions. Or else criticise current sources used. At present it appears you merely flagged the article based on POV.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation #12 (suffer the restless children) James, do you honestly believe, one is not required to verify your sources? If this were true anyone could post any source to support any birdbrained idea. In this instance, citation 12 supports this sentence, "most children who end up with a diagnosis of ADHD have normal behavior in the physician's office". Rick Maynes is an associate professor of political science. He is not qualified to have a scientific opinion. We could restate the sentence to, Rick Maynes, who is an associate professor of political science has the unqualifed opinion that... But what would be the point? Barkley merely points out that ADHD kids act worse at home. That doesn't mean that statistically they act normal in the Dr.'s office. Wasn't it Barkley who stated that the ADHD diagnosis is an easy diagnosis to make since the behaviour is so overt and hard to miss?

But all of this is besides the point. As Hordaland stated, the "biased" title like "suffer the restless children" does show the intention of the author, and that is to impart bias. I couldn't have made a better case of the citation's exclusion.--scuro (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reading what I wrote. We're not in agreement about what it means, however. Anyone inventing such a "biased" title is, IMO, thereby intentionally making clear that the topic is controversial; indeed, the article is about how the increase in ADHD diagnoses "triggered an intense public debate". It is interesting that the paper was "presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hyatt Regency Chicago and the Sheraton Chicago Hotel and Towers, Chicago, IL, Aug 30, 2007" (my emphasis). But then he is (they are) writing about "clinical, economic, educational, political" trends, indicating that ADHD is controversial also politically. The whole article is about the "numerous controversies", also "in the public arena".

Admittedly the linked paper doesn't support the "normal behavior in clinician's office" claim AFAIKS as far as I can see. However the book the paper speaks of, Medicating Children: ADHD and Pediatric Mental Health by Rick Mayes, Catherine Bagwell, and Jennifer Erkulwater, does: "Only a minority of children with the disorder exhibit symptoms during a physician's office visit.", and that sentence is cited to: "28 See E. Sleator, R. Ullmann, “Can the Physician Diagnose Hyperactivity in the Office,” Pediatrics 67 (January 1981):13-7; T. Johnson, “Evaluating the Hyperactive Child in Your Office: Is it ADHD?” American Family Physician 56 (July 1997):155-160,168-170." --Hordaland (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure Hordaland. It's a treat to be treated with respect in this community and I hope that we continue to share ideas about the article in a respectful manner.

Back to the citation, my point was that no self respecting scientist or researcher of any standing would ever entitle a paper, "suffer the restless children". Mayes is not a credible source to make scientific observations and the citation should be replaced or removed. That or it should be qualified as mentioned before. Using such a title shows an obvious bias of the author which is not appropriate when stating facts. That Mayes could have actually quoted another research paper is important. That paper should now be cited. That still doesn't mean the passage and citation in the article is totally Kosher. There may be issues with this new citation. For instance this study comes from 1981 which is significant because the research happened so long ago. I think the bigger issue will be that the citation supports a passage in the article which is OR. I'll let you know once I read the study.--scuro (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's some info (March 2009) -- I am not suggesting this url as an RS. http://boatwrightpodcasts.urlibraries.org/wordpress/?p=16 offers a podcast (to which I've not listened): "Featured authors are Dr. Catherine Bagwell, Associate Professor of Psychology and Dr. Jennifer Erkulwater, Associate Professor of Political Science. Dr. Rick Mayes is another co-author, but he is unable to join us today due to a research leave project in Peru. Their new book, Medicating Children: ADHD and Pediatric Mental Health [Harvard University Press, 2009], integrates analyses of the clinical, political, historical, educational, social, economic and legal aspects of ADHD and the medications and treatment surrounding the mental disorder."

The book mentioned may well be a reliable source. - Hordaland (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Book is good thanks Hordaland. You can get a preview through google books. http://books.google.com/books?id=drBejRLWkHkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Medicating+Children:+ADHD+and+Pediatric+Mental+Health&ei=2Br3SYeeNJmalQTxq_ikBA#PPA175,M1 --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I hadn't thought of google books. And I see that the same book was discussed above, in late November. Sneaking in here out of order - Hordaland (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A start to consensus building would be to at least tag citation 12 with a tag like a dubious tag, or a concession in "talk" that there probably is a better source. One reasonable voice allows for consensus building. At that point we can work together. I'd be seeking additional information instead of defending myself from repeated attacks.--scuro (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what is "dubious" about it. It's a screed claiming that ADHD doesn't exist, and an excellent example of the reasoning of those ... let me say "ADHD deniers". htom (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Added to more references to back up the point.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My focus is on the "suffer" citation. Should something be done about this particular citation? I'm suggesting that it is not a suitable citation for the sentence it supports. A number of different tags could be used alerting the reader to this citation, it doesn't have to be the dubious tag,...or it could be removed, possibly being replaced by another citation if that citation is better. Or, if the sentence can't be supported, both the citation and the sentence should be removed. Htom, I have no problem with ADHD deniers being on this article. I've added content to ADHD denier articles, including "positive" information for balance. That is the way wikipedia is supposed to work. I have no problem with denier literature making it onto this article as long as the article doesn't turn into a coatrack or have undue weight issues.

What is wrong with this specific citation is that "denier' literature almost always isn't scholarly. The "suffer" citation supports an observable fact in the article. A good objective citation needs to support the observed fact. You may think I am nitpicking here, and perhaps I am to a degree. But it is to make a point. My detractors have been wrong all along. My ideas have merit and in a collaborative community I wouldn't be attacked as I am constantly here. In a collaborative community collaboration would occur because other contributors would be communicating and seeking consensus. Here we can't even get beyond this one simple citation. No one has agreed about any point that I have made. No quarter has been given, so from my viewpoint this article may very well stay biased for a long period of time, perhaps for as long as the "ownership" folks are active on the page.--scuro (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AS I HAVE STATED ABOVE I HAVE ADDED TWO MORE REFS. Will will keep the original as it is a secondary rather than a primary source ( one should not use only a primary source ) and the third is an educational site by Barkly's which is not very scholarly. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Also: Johnson, Thomas M. Evaluating the hyperactive child in your office: is it ADHD? American Family Physician, v.56, July 1997: 155-60, 168-179 might be useful if anyone can access it. It's newer than 1981 at any rate. - Hordaland (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ownership is about not letting go and needing control. The "suffer" citation is weak. Let it go and lets move on.--scuro (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided justification for the POV tag or why the reference should be removed.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

James, er...where have you been recently? I've never written so much about so little. All I've written about since coming back is the POV tag and the "suffer" citation. I make points about the "suffer" citation and you talk about anything but the points I've made. While your efforts to find more citations are commendable, get back to the table and deal with the points I've made. Do that, or get off the pot. To do otherwise simply seals my contention that this article is ALL about page ownership. Can we move on from this most basic issue? I'd rather be editing the Abousfian Abdelrazik article where my efforts may actually make a difference in this world. He is one of your fellow citizens who was tortured and who can't get home because of his government.--scuro (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The subjective "suffer" citation is a biased citation, which makes it a poor citation for the factual sentence it supports. Surrounding it with other citations does not make it acceptable. This is simply putting lipstick on a pig. The "suffer" citation should be removed in this context. It could be used to support other information such as a subjective viewpoint, but not for factual information. There is no consensus on this issue and there never was. No one has recently contested my viewpoint. If I hear from no one then this would imply that there is a "silent" consensus that the suffer citation should be removed.--scuro (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's become reference 13, btw. I think you're hung up on a) the title, which was obviously designed to draw attention through parallelism, and b) that Meyers' employment is as a poli sci teacher; we don't know what his degree(s) are in at all; neither of these things make the abstract biased. If there are details in the paper, drag them into the light of day, please. htom (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, what self respecting scholar would title any paper on ADHD, suffer the restless children, and then go report observable facts. That another contributors have called him a "denier" would be another indicator that the article is biased. Wikipedia asks us in the consensus building process to seek compromise. In normal consensus seeking groups there is give and take. The first compromise is to give a bit when your position is weak. It is simply a citation that is being used in the wrong context. It should be removed. Instead once again I see no quarter being given. It would be refreshing if someone within this community would actively seek consensus. As wikipedia states, "Articles on Wikipedia are created collaboratively by editors who have different perspectives, access to different sources, and different writing and reasoning styles. To achieve a neutral point of view under such conditions". If on the other hand you are asking me to take the time get the article (not an easy thing to do ) and clearly point out the shortcomings, I ask you will you put the POV tag back up on this article, and defend my right to be treated respectfully when others have personally attacked me on this talk page, as they have in the past?--scuro (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it should be removed thus we do not have a silent consensus to remove it. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Looks like we need an RfC to try to settle the question is ADHD controversial or not? :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would just revert unless good reasons for disputing neutrality are given on talk pages. Although you have been around these ADHD articles longer than I so maybe RfC is best next move.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay will hold off for now. The tagging over everyone an editor does not agree with does not add to wikipedia and verges on disruptive editing. Just do not want things to get out of hand again.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree flagging for flimsy reasons can be disruptive editing. If things reach level of edit warring or talk page filling up with pointless arguments or similar then RfC I reckon.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

James, settle... I see bias in the article. Don't jump to conclusions. There are controversial issues but everything to do with ADHD is not controversial. Having said that, nothing can stop either of you from requesting an RFC. It is my intention to place a POV tag on the article and keep it there until the article is cleaned up. There are many problems with the article, the main problems will soon be discussed, with a few specific examples to demonstrate that what I have to say has merit. What won't be tolerated is a continual removal of the POV tag without discussion and agreement. If you can't live with that sign me up for an Rfc now.--scuro (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are doing as disruptive. Will appreciate your comments at RFC.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got an invite. Is it a behaviour RFC or a content RFC?--scuro (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This will be a content RFC.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I haven't changed any content on the article for probably about 4 months and have been only allowed to make perhaps two or three since you arrived. This is why the original OWNERSHIP RFC was made against you. Are you not complaining about my behaviour?--scuro (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ownership of articles

I'd suggest that certain editors become familiar with WP:OWNERSHIP and edit warring(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring) POV tags are not be removed at the whim of other editors.--scuro (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A single revert or 2 reverts is not edit warring. You are abusing templates by sending them to my talk page accusing me of being engaged in an edit war after 1 revert. You are veing very aggressive, combative and unreasonable. Furthermore you are an experienced and established editor so I have no doubt that this is intentional on your part. You abuse templates and falsely accuse people of ownership. Having said this, I am not annoyed because all of this will be able to be brought up in RfC. I have no intention of reverting you if you revert me again, so don't even think of abusing templates again on my talk page. Infact don't ever post anything on my talk page again. I don't want to deal with you on my personal space as you are very antagonistic.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The tag clearly says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."

1) Where is the discussion on the talk page regarding the dispute?

2) What part of article is disputed?

3) It says don't remove tag until dispute (on talk page) is resolved. There is no dispute because you haven't stated what is disputed!

So the tag was removed. I think request for comments is warranted with a view of whether administrative action is required.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I think you are edit warring if you remove a POV as soon as you see it, without any attempt at communication. Perhaps it was a bit aggressive on my part to put a 3R tag on your page. Then again I wanted to get your attention. What you are doing is wrong. But lets start over. I'm here in good faith and I am assuming you are here also in good faith. I'm going to do things by the letter and I invite you to do so also. If we both do this for the first little while at least, we should get along fine and we can coexist on this page. I have already stated that the article is biased and is a coatrack. That was mentioned in the original edit summary and also on the title. I'll be more specific. And then I am going to add the tag again.

I have concerns about the whole article but specifically I am concerned about: bias of wording, OR, undue weight, the lead, citations, and coatrack issues.

To start off with there are several biased citations. Let start of with #12 entitled suffer the restless children. The title itself shows a bias. While visually presented as an academic work, and while it talks of research, how exactly did Rick Maynes determine that, "most children who end up with a diagnosis of ADHD have normal behavior in the physician's office"? Is this clinically significant in the diagnosis of ADHD?...are those children who do not have normal behaviour, clinically significant? For example if those who do not have normal behaviour, make up 30% of the kids who visit the dr. office, is that significant? etc etc etc. --scuro (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

One is not required to verify the sources of all the references that one uses. But here is another ref that supports the same and from Barkley's no less. "Examiners must be cautious not to over interpret any informal observations of the child’s behavior during this clinic visit. The office behavior of ADHD children is often far better than that observed at home (Sleator & Ullman, 1981)." http://www.continuingedcourses.net/active/courses/course004.php--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that a "biased" title like "suffer the restless children" does show and is intended to show that that the topic is controversial. It's an entry in the controversy that this article is supposed to be about. - Hordaland (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask DJ and LG to kindly reconsider if they may not have ownership issues with regards to the article. No changes have been made to the article and only a POV tag has been repeatedly attempted to be added. In each case both DJ and LG have removed the tag without any attempt of communication with me before they do it. There have been attempts at justifications after the tag is removed but this is not communication. Please reconsider what you are doing. Action will be taken after the appropriate number of unilateral removals of the tag. I am asking each one of you to stop separately, and seek to work together as Wikipedia asks us to do. --scuro (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(out)Scuro -- specifically, the doctor's office is a new and novel place for the child, which provides stimulations (visual, audible, tactile, interactive, ...) to an ADHD child which helps them with their self-control (it provides the same stimulations to the non-ADHD children, too, but they don't have the self-control problems which can be moderated by external stimuli.) There are many possible reasons for a child's behaviors. htom (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it is novel situation and behaviours will decrease compared to behaviours that they may display at home and/or school. Still, talk to a Dr. who assesses ADHD and they will tell you overt ADHD type behaviours are often displayed. The point I am making is they don't disappear, there are just less then in other situations which contradicts the quote and the passage in the article.--11:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you do not agree than find a reference that says something different.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'ver already demonstrated that the link is not appropriate. See above. What should happen is that it should be removed along with the sentence it supports. If you wish to look for another reference that supports the cited notion, the ball would be in your court.--scuro (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You have not shown that it is inappropriate.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated that the paper's author's conclusion is incorrect, and even if you had, that would be OR. Find a RS that makes your claim. Some of us understand why the behavior claim is correct (and even expectable.) htom (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The citation supports a stated fact in the article. The citation is biased and of little scholarly worth. When you are supporting facts that are not general knowledge and specific to the topic, you want the highest level of citation. It is not OR to point out a poor citation. That I have never communicated with you, and that you choose to use your first interchange with me to slight me groundlessly, speaks volumes. That you both disagree with me can be considered part of the process but does not in any way negate my claim that the citation is POV and as the first citation that I have examined in talk, gives credence to my claim that the whole article has POV issues.--scuro (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

All citations have a POV. If you think their POV has been challenged, then find a source to challenge it and cite it. Your POV of the POV in a citation is meaningless on wikipedia. You need to challenge it with a reliable source. You can't cite or de-cite yourself.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You folks have it backwards. Citations are either reliable or unreliable. In this instance I have made a strong case that is unreliable. I don't have to find another source to "counter" the original citation. It doesn't meet the standard. In wikipedia a citation's reliability has nothing to do with my personal feelings about the source. You might want to do some further reading. WP:RS--scuro (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

LG that is very well put, much better than I managed. Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Doc.

The source meets reliable sources guidelines Scuro. Guidelines don't say title of citation "has to be neutral". Your case is weak, not strong. If you have a superior reliable source then cite that and we can discuss things further. One VERY important point scuro. You do realise that if you win this dispute, that ALL of the antipsychiatry and scientology references will have to be deleted because they are WEAKER sources than the source that you are disputing. So you will make the article even more biased against your POV. I do know that newspapers generally not be used in medicine related articles for example. Sometimes they are appropriate and add to an article but if hotly disputed generally they should be deleted. The websites cited also are even worse and weaker than the newspaper articles. Hence those sections will have to be deleted then if ref 12 is deleted based on it not being a reliable enough source. I know that you are very much in favour of promoting the view that opposition to ADHD and amphetamine drugs in children is mostly a scientology conspiracy. Are you still happy to continue the dispute realising this?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So you can read my mind. Frankly I don't care about the article anymore. What I care about is process that is not being followed because of page ownership issues. No attempt at consensus is being sought. The citation supports an observable fact. I've made my points why this citation is not a good scientific citation. You should be addressing these points instead of telling me I need a "counter" citation, or that if you don't give in we will change all the article. Consensus begins with agreeing with the obvious, not giving no quarter. Consensus begins with some stating, I agree with that point you made.--scuro (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO the ADHD controversies are not solely in the scientific/medical domain. "The public" is also interested, rightly so. This is not just a scientific/medical article. In this case, newspaper and other popular press articles can be good sources. IMO. - Hordaland (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Is ADHD controversial?

Is this intended to be a formal RFC which is to appear on the Mathematics, natural science and technology list for example? It doesn't appear to me to be quite correctly formatted (but I'm no expert!). - Hordaland (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

For those considering an RFC, you may want to check out Jmh649's RFC before you jump into a new one. Jmh649 should consider reopening his RFC because it would save time. It truly is a lengthy process to set up so why bother if we are rehashing old issues. Two unresolved issues were: i) the unilateral pulling down of tags, ii)and Jame's belief that I see no controversy with regards to ADHD. I'm still willing to take another kick at the can if he earnestly wants to do this. I've stayed away from the Wikipedia purposefully for two months to prove that I don't have ownership issues. Ownership was the main issue of Jame's RFC. Here is a link to Jame's RFC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/jmh649 Regards,--scuro (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Hordaland I do not think I have set it up properly. If someone wishes to help with that I would appreciate it. No Scuro I do not think I will reopen the old RFC it was closed long ago. Currently there are more editors involved with this article so I am hoping we can deal with the issue of disruptive editors attempting to deny or remove any information about the controversial nature of ADHD. Cheers. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To scuro: Two quotes from the old RFC you mention, both from 3 December:

• Doc James said: if problems commence again we should seek help sooner then last time so that useful editing can start again sooner.
• scuro replied: I do agree with you here, we let things go far too long before seeking help.

(Edit/edit conflict) I feel that iff a new RfC is needed, it should be a new one, and it should be centered on content rather than personalities or formalities.

To Doc James: If I figure out the right format, I'll add it to the top of this section. - Hordaland (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing I have learned from your (James) last RFC is not to take this process lightly. In reading your above post, I question the basic premise of your RFC. To date, all that I have done is attempt to put a POV tag on this article, and put tags on the talk page of contributors who unilaterally removed the POV tag. After all the POV tag states directly on it,"Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2009)". The dispute is not resolved. James, while you know that using an RFC as a form of harassment will be looked upon in a very negative light, other newer contributors don't. They do now!!--scuro (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I see now, that Doc James has created this Rfc in the ADHD controversies talk page with the following content:

• reason=Editors disagree on whether or not (the diagnosis of) Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is controversial.
• reason=Some editors say that ADHD is not controversial and thus try to remove any information implying that it is

This is a distinct misrepresentation of what I claim and what I intend. I take extreme exception to that, and to the fact that this Rfc was created in "ADHD controversies" talk page, but clearly aimed at my position in the ADHD talk page. Neither was I notified by Doc James that the Rfc was created. As is evident, I have never contributed to the "ADHD controversies" talk page (before this), so I obviously cannot be expected to have read this without being informed. If this is how the formal process of dispute resolution is supposed to work, we have very serious problems. --Sportsmand (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I replied to Doc James in the ADHD talk page "As long as you state that the mentioned Rfc is not directed towards my position in this talk page, it is perfectly fine with me and I rest my objection". --Sportsmand (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Off track

This is getting a little off track. Hoping we can deal with to what degree ADHD is controversial. And than what references are required to verify information added about the controversial aspects of ADHD.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a lengthy and documented history of your ownership issues (ie removing tags), and an unwillingness to see issues to completion in mediation, such as what constitutes controversy. Nothing much has changed. We've been off track ever since you joined this community and this new RFC is just one more "off track" distraction. The ball has always been in your court. Any time you are ready...--scuro (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You are the wone who chased off newcomers like the consultant psychiatrist who wanted to bring his expertise and bring neutrality to the article. You also abused template warnings. I and Doc James have done nothing wrong that I can see.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That consultant psychiatrist that you are referring to was highly abusive over many months and had been warned by administrators. He was about to get banned before he left in a huff. Verbal abuse was his solution to questions about sources etc.

When you folks pull down POV tags without justification, or prior discussion, 3R warnings are justified, especially when there is a length recent history here page ownership. Do take a look at the 3R rule. WP:3-RR. If the intention is to edit war based on page ownership I think you folks are on shaky ground. While it's never fun to get a warning on your talk page, it is part of the process especially for newbies. I apologize for alarming you. As always I'm willing to start fresh if other editors are willing to follow wiki policies and procedures. There is no reason why this community can't work together. Let me know if you would like to work together in a spirit of collaboration. All the best, --scuro (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering your first corespondance was a hostile ambush with a 3 revert edit warring template when I did a single revert really shows that you are the one who trys to own articles and chase off anyone with a differing opinion. Really I wish you would just quit moaning and just start citing sources like everyone else. You are completely free to add whatever you want to the article provided it is reliably cited. If you scroll up you will see that when sifaka challenged one of my edits with reliable sources, I agreed to her edits and deletion of one of my citations. It is not about OWN but about you citing sources. I am going to stop communicating with you soon unless you start citing sources and discussing reliable sources. 95% of what you say is drama based or time wasting.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you forgetting that the POV tag states, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2009)". Forget dispute, there has to be discussion for a dispute to occur. And you removed the POV tag without prior discussion because...?!?? Your quick action led me to assume that page ownership was still a huge issue for this article. Editing (reverting) history proves me right once more. When diplomatic approaches have had no traction for a half a year, a more direct approach is justified. There is plenty of documented history to demonstrate page ownership issues for this article. As for drama, who is not focusing on content?--scuro (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Justification for POV tag nonexistant

Currently there is no justification on the talk page for a POV tag (the issue involving Citation #12 seems to have been resolved up above.) I am going to remove the POV tag in 24 hours time from this article unless someone posts specific passages from the article and describes in detail why they violate NPOV linking to the appropriate subsection of the policy page with a suggestion how they might be fixed. For clarity's sake, please use a list. Sifaka ^talk 17:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Example: "Suffer the Restless Children: ADHD, Psychostimulants, and the Politics of Pediatric Mental Health" used to source the first sentence in this section fails the Wikipedia:Reliable_Source#Extremist and fringe sources guidelines because it (fill in the blank with CONCISE reasoning here). Please find alternate reliable sources. STATUS: RESOLVED - Alternate reliable sources found: "Can the physician diagnose hyperactivity in the office?" "ADHD in Children: Diagnosis and Assessment by Russell A. Barkley, Ph.D."

still no consensus and could someone put the POV tag back up?

I'm sorry but this is not how consensus works. Time limits are not imposed with demands that must be followed. That is not a conversation, that is authoritarianism. Try first to understand the other persons position. Where can compromise be made? To repeat, there is no consensus on the "suffer" citation, nor on the contention that the article is POV.--scuro (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The point of my request for justification was to get something done rather than debate while doing nothing. When there is a difference of opinion where no compromise can be reached, (POV tag or no POV tag) the next best option is to fix the source of the problem so there won't be any argument. That means addressing the non-NPOV issues so there aren't any more of them. Seeing that the majority of the editors seem to be against the n-NPOV tag, I was trying to provide a suitable outlet for redressing non-neutral point of view issues in a way that would make it clear whether a n-NPOV tag is justified and when it can subsequently be taken down (when the issues brought up are addressed). I set up the guidelines to be very specific, because you, Scuro, tend not to be. Your arguments seem very weak because you don't point out specific problems nor what specific principles are being violated. Just saying the article is a coatrack or whatever else is not enough; you have to be constructive with your criticism. You would be a poor editor/reviewer if you give a paper back to a student with general statements like "didn't like it", or "please redo," on the top of it because no one is going to know how to even begin to address your concerns and how to make it better. While I can't speak for other editors, while your points may seem obvious to you, not everyone else sees things the way you do. I think other editors are frustrated with you adding the n-NPOV tag because you haven't made an attempt at explaining what is wrong with the article and why and how it can be improved in a way that others would know how to do it. For me personally, what I find frustrating is that you seem to want to prevent attempts at solving the problem and despite several invitations for you to explain your reasoning, you refuse to participate.

The point of the n-NPOV tag is to get editors to attempt to rebalance the article. The n-NPOV tag is not a warning to the general readers that you can post because you don't like some of the content in an article. Also, content alone determines whether or not an article needs a tag, not "article owning" or other editor related issues. ("A contributor with major page ownership issues stops any edits on this page. N-NPOV issues can't be dealt with-tag needed" isn't a good reason for a n-NPOV tag, but a user conduct investigation) Bringing up the same issue again and again without any support for your argument (specific instances of violations) is going to alienate the other editors and make it very difficult for you to edit because no one will want to work with you at all. If you really want to improve the content, then fix the content, and don't worry about the tags because so far, all the discussion about whether a n-NPOV tag is needed or not has resulted in only one content change: finding alternate sources for the "suffer the restless children source". That change only came about because you were specific at one point about problems with the article. The rest of the discussion is just endlessly repeating bloat. The inefficiency isn't worth it and it's time to move on and seek a new way of addressing your concerns in a more constructive manner. Sifaka ^talk 17:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrators listened to my problems in a recent action called a "Wikiquette alert". The irony here is that the action was filled against me and in the end you could sense that they were sympathetic to the page ownership problems I have been facing on this article. [[7]]

Now you can follow the advice of the administrator and work collaboratively, or you can find a million reasons why this can't be done. Which is it for you? Page ownership has been a huge problem for me. If that problem was solved, I wouldn't have to edit so incredibly defensively as I have in the past. Solutions?--scuro (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuro, all I am asking for are specifics. You say there are problems. Great, I think so too. Where are they? Which sentences or sections? What should be done to fix them? If you want to get problems solved and you are not willing to edit those sections yourself then you have to work with the other editors by explaining where the problems are. I'm not going to reformat the entire ~4700 word article to try to address a problem someone does not clarify. Sifaka ^talk 14:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Jesus scattered seeds on the rocks. I'm not Jesus. I've gotten burned so many times on these articles that trust building will come slowly. I've got to see that there is fertile ground where my edits can exist without being chopped down once more. Thank you for your effort, these recent developments have been positive.--scuro (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning

A warning of Scuro has been posted Edit_warring#Scuro_reported_by_Jmh649_.28Result:_Warned.29 --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you James for not taking down the POV tag. It is a welcome start to discussion.--scuro (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Jmh, that link doesn't work. - Hordaland (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks try this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Scuro_reported_by_Jmh649_.28Result:_Warned.29 --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits by User:Sifaka to the long term effects section.

I moved this from Literaturegeek's talk page where I originally started the discussion to here since it concerned article content.

Sorry Litgeek, I overwrote your contribs temporarily because I was busy organizing. I'll readd them in in a second. Sifaka ^talk 00:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, is it ok if I leave them out? I have been trying to keep the scope of the paragraph centered on controversies about ADHD and I feel like your recent contribs are too general in topic. They might better fit in stimulant, but truthfully there isn't really a good article or subsection for this info. Maybe a new subsection in stimulant or a whole article is in order. I don't know though. Feel around and see what other people think. Sifaka ^talk 00:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. no problem. I mustn't have paid enough attention to the methodology aspects of the study. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. One of the main controversies surrounding ADHD and stimulants is the very limited research. So robust large studies assessing certain endpoints or meta-anaylsis's etc on the long term effects don't exist. So I would be opposed to deleting the limited research findings that have been found. What I would support however, is keeping the data but clarifying within the wikipedia article the methodology problems such as small sample size. I don't agree with some of the edits that you have done. For example why was the source saying short term clinical trial data can't be relied on to determine long term effects deleted? I agree with some of your other edits. I am going to bed now but will check on the article later.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The high rates of schizophrenics and bipolar patients having a past history of use of amphetamine based stimulants in childhood should not have been deleted. All that is important is that the refs are not taken out of context. This is what the ref says,

Retrospective data from patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders document high rates of childhood stimulant use—generally higher even than other groups with attentional dysfunction (26) and histories of stimulant-associated adverse behavioral effects (27). In these patients, a history of stimulant use is also associated with an earlier age at onset (28) and a more severe course of illness during hospitalization (29). Stimulant exposure in vulnerable individuals may hasten the onset or worsen the course of bipolar or schizophrenic illnesses (26, 30).

This is how I summarised it in wiki,

High rates of childhood stimulant use is found in patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder independent of ADHD. Individuals with a diagnosis of bipolar or schizophrenia who were prescribed stimulants during childhood typically have a significantly earlier onset of the psychotic disorder and suffer a more severe clinical course of psychotic disorder.

The source, was a peer reviewed secondary source review article which is the highest quality of source under wikipedia reliable sources guidelines. Please don't delete high quality sources without discussion or challenging it with another secondary source.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, You changed my edits which accurately interpreted the review article to make it say something completely different which I don't even think the review article even said. You changed it to say "Potential long term effects of methylphenidate being investigated include drug addiction, withdrawal reactions, psychosis and depression." It was reviewing research which has already been carried out, the ref was not about future research. It was not talking about current ongoing research or future research. What you did was misrepresented the ref, so I reverted it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There were so many changes and major deletions of good quality secondary sourced info and at least some of the changes distorted what the ref said. I had to revert it all. I think if you are going to delete secondary sourced data that it should be discussed first especially as it is a controversial article. Some of your changes may have been improvements to the article but I just couldn't decifer them from the major deletions and reordering from viewing the edit history. There were just too many changes so I just reverted. Please discuss first major changes. I hope that we don't fall out over this. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

First thing I want to say is that I should have definitely discussed with you first and on this page and not your talk page. I'm sorry, that was poor wiki etiquette on my part. Don't worry about me getting grumpy by the way. I'm glad to work with you. You dig up some great content. I did go and readd + re-move some of the content that you haven't brought up above. I am not too good at sifting through the literature.

You were concerned about that study by Esther Cherland which I removed reference to. I did it because we had two studies already and the author of this study said the methodology of the study wasn't standardized:

"As the study is retrospective, assessments are not fully standardized, nor is the follow-up consistent. However, the size of the review and the rate of side effects suggests that a prospective study would be useful. Considering the importance of stimulant medications in treating children with ADHD, more precise measurement of these side effects, clinically and in the literature, is warranted."

It figured that since we have two sources (Randal G. Ross and the Novartis drug sheet for Ritalin) it was fine. Also, another less-than-meritorious reason was that explaining the drawbacks of the study would have required me to write more explaining small study size and non standardization when I'm trying to be as to the point as possible.

The problem I have with the following lines...

High rates of childhood stimulant use is found in patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder independent of ADHD. Individuals with a diagnosis of bipolar or schizophrenia who were prescribed stimulants during childhood typically have a significantly earlier onset of the psychotic disorder and suffer a more severe clinical course of psychotic disorder.[74][75][76]

...is that the way they are phrased they are tangential to ADHD. Stimulant use in patients with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia is irrelevant here unless they are specifically talking about comorbid BP or SCH. When I read your lines, I wasn't sure you were referring to comorbid conditions. The sources are fine in that I have no problems with them.

"Stimulant exposure in vulnerable individuals may hasten the onset or worsen the course of bipolar or schizophrenic illnesses (26, 30). Thus, while stimulants are clearly beneficial for the vast majority of children with ADHD, there may be a small subgroup for whom the medications worsen the long-term course of other illnesses. Research aimed at determining whether such a subgroup exists and how to identify it is warranted." (Randal G. Ross)

Maybe a good way to paraphrase the above quote is something like this:

"For a small subgroup of children who have ADHD with comorbid schizophrenia or bipolar disorders, methylphenidate treatment may hasten the onset and increase the severity of the psychotic symptoms."

Regarding the line "Potential long term effects of methylphenidate being investigated include drug addiction, withdrawal reactions, psychosis and depression." Yes I did change the tense, and now that I look back on it, it wasn't such a good idea since it did fudge the source a bit (that was not my intention.) In my defense, research is those areas is still ongoing.

In case you asked, but I forgot about it, here is some of the reasoning behind some of my deletions. "Although the safety profile of short-term methylphenidate therapy in clinical trials has been well established, repeated use of psychostimulants such as methylphenidate is less clear. The long term effects of methylphenidate such as drug addiction, withdrawal reactions and psychosis has received very little research and thus the long term effects of using stimulants for ADHD are largely unknown." wasn't really deleted so much as smeared out over several lines to reduce the redundancy.

"The long term effects on the developing brain and on mental health disorders in later life of chronic use of methylphenidate is unknown. Despite this between 0.51% to 1.23% of children between the ages of 2 and 6 years old take stimulants in the USA. Stimulants drugs are not approved in this age group." - This got moved to the section on coercion because I thought it fit better there since that topic is about kids who don't have a say being put on meds and that section needed some statistics. It has already been made pretty clear that the long term effects of methylphenidate are unknown so mentioning all the different subgroups of people who the effects are unknown for would be silly.

I deleted the list of the methylphenidate psychotic symptoms since there is already information about it in the methylphenidate article.

I think the rest of the work I did was moving stuff around and elaborating on the findings in the papers. Hope all this helps. Sifaka ^talk 05:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I don't think the comorbid term should be used here because it implies that they had the psychotic disorders at the same time as they were being treated with stimulants as children. I have made some changes to the article though to try and resolve the issues that you have raised here. Check out my edits and let me know what you think.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

consensus building-how it could work

As wikipedia states, the root of consensus is consent. This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions. Those within this community who want work with other contributors who have different interests and opinions should make themselves known. Those who understand give and take, and want to move the article forward with voices from all sides, need to be heard. Those who are willing to defend others whose viewpoints may even be the opposite their viewpoints, are needed. Those who respect the processes of wikipedia above content, are wanted. Anyone willing to start fresh?--scuro (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You reverted my revert of your edits which have nothing to do with discussing sources. Please don't post anything more on article talk page unless you are citing sources for consensus. You are more than welcome to try and make the article more neutral by citing reliable sources. You are being disruptive and making the talk page a chat forum debating club.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

How about a break for a few days - and have a fresh look on Monday? Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear before we break for the weekend, LG is complaining that after she zapped 3 of my separate talk page posts right off the talk page, including the original post that started this thread right here, I reverted it back.--scuro (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LG unless you start citing sources what you write should be deleted.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

reverting on the talk page is not helpful, unless what is being written really is vandalism, and it gives the impression of a policy of intimidation sending a message only the anti-psychiatry group can edit here.--Vannin (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I said without citing sources.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that reverting on the talk page is probably never helpful (but sometimes required by law or WP policy.) Having the same discussion being carried on in a half-dozen different sections is not especially helpful, either. Archiving all of the sections from 2008 that don't have ongoing conversation would probably be helpful, and maybe even all of the sections that haven't had a comment in the last 42 days. htom (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuro and any other editor are all perfectly welcome to contribute to this article and any article that they see fit with reliable sources. I am not trying to stop anyone from doing that regardless of editing POV. What I am trying to stop is the talk page turning into a debating chat forum which is what Scuro has done. None of what he has said has been productive in improving the article. No citations have been produced, no content within citations discussed etc. The consensus seems to be don't revert talk page comments. Fair enough I will avoid doing that but if continued chat forum unproductive and disruptive postings keep happening I think a warning template is all that can be done. The warning template exists for a reason.-Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I note that neither JMH or Literaturegeek have produced citations in their above comments, and that their comments are excluded from being considered as unproductive and disruptive postings because they are special.--Vannin (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

To the contentious references "suffer the restless child" I add two further references. (I was than referred to as some editor at WQA rather than given credit). This was an attempt to deal with the issue. I am than being unfairly accused of not providing references? I am still waiting for a reference from Scuro. If the ref he provides is better than the scentence would be changed. This is how science works.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Vannin, you may have not meant it, but your comment seemed uncivil. Please be careful with your phrasing when making a point. It would also be helpful if you quoted the first few words or linked to a diff so it clear which comments you are referring to. Sifaka ^talk 18:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The topic here is reverting comments on the talk page. JMH commented that was written would be reverted unless "citing sources" We don't typically have to have citations for comments made on the talk page; obviously it helps to cite references on the article itself, although some changes can be made for grammatical purposes without references. But we all write on the talk page without constantly citing sources, and my point was that it creates an appearance of one rule for some but not for others when talk page comments are removed. I apologize for any perceived sarcasm in my effort to make this point. Fortunately, LG has now agreed not to remove talk page comments but it seems to me that there remains a threat to treat some people differently from others, and the anti-psychiatry editors here have made it quite unpleasant to edit here.--Vannin (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

First off all you are taking it a little out of context. Second I hope it is not me that you are referring to as being anti-psychiatry. I am not I am just pro research. Psychiatry has some good research but most of it is not. And bio-psychiatry does NOT get to redefine psychiatry as only bio-psych. By the way I have not and am not planning on removing talk page comments.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How it should work

After a lengthy airing out of problems facing this article an administrator concluded, "Wikipedia works on WP:Consensus, and relies heavily on the WP:BRD cycle". If no one disagrees with this process, it will be considered a silent consensus.--scuro (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What point are you trying to make? Later Edit: Is it possible to move this section up to the one discussing consensus above rather than make a whole new section? It's bothersome to have several very similar topics. Even later edit: I moved it, by making it a subsection of the above. Revert if it bothers you unduly. Sifaka ^talk 15:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So they way I understand it is if someone adds something and 3 other editors revert it 6 times than the consensus is that it should not be there? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this essay guideline Don't revert due to "no consensus" is relevant to Doc James' point. Sifaka ^talk 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We have an administrator who looked at what has been happening here. He specifically pointed out what should be done (WP:Consensus and WP:BRD. First thing that needs to be done is that we need to work as a community and work with a common purpose. That means that we recognize that we have different viewpoints but that we work together for the betterment of the article. It is only when we all consent to a version of the article, that NPOV will be achieved. From the recent Wikiquette. Hordaland shows how it can be done(see bellow). You can see that he wants to get things done and is willing to compromise. That is the playbook we should all take our game plan from.

Dear Nja: Thanks for taking this on, and please don't give up too quickly. There's an atmosphere on these (adhd and adhd controversies) talk pages, a chip-on-the-shoulder which seems to be contagious. The motto seems to be "Do not assume good faith." The problems you're aiming to solve should and must be solvable; that will require both wisdom and time. Thank you, Hordaland (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is the "suffer the restless children" citation [[8]] It supports this sentence which would require extensive scholarly research to determine with any certainty, "Only 20% of children who end up with a diagnosis of ADHD have hyperactive behavior in the physician's office". Other contributors posted other citations which they state supports the sentence. My point is that an object fact shouldn't be supported by a citation with bias. The citation should be removed from this context. It could be used in other parts of the article that are subjective. From what I have read the sentence isn't accurate either, but I knew better then to go there until there was consensus about the "suffer" citation. I've had a number of painful experiences of discussions that go off on several tangents, never to fully focus back on the initial issue. So talk never got past the point of me stating the citation should be removed because it wasn't appropriate for the fact it was supporting.--scuro (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Suffer the Restless Children: ADHD, Psychostimulants, and the Politics of Pediatric Mental Health" citation is not at all biased. It's a lecture given by one of the authors of Medicating Children: ADHD and Pediatric Mental Health, a book which received glowing reviews. So "citation with bias" is no reason to disallow that citation at all.

That said, as far as I have seen, the lecture does not support that 20% sentence. That ref was, in fact, in the article before the sentence "Most children who end up with a diagnosis of ADHD have normal behavior in the physicians[sic] office." was added in front of it on 17 Nov. 2008. At that point the 'suffer' ref stood alone; the Sleator and Barkley refs were added later, as was the percentage.

So, Scuro, I can support disallowing that ref for that fact (the 20% statement). But not for the reason(s) you've been arguing.

The 20% claim is found in the Sleator (1981) ref, which is cited in the above mentioned book, there as "a minority", not as precisely 20%.

Nja, for more discussion see adhd controversies, talk, search the page for Mayes. - Hordaland (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a conversation where facts are being shared. I have learned that the citation was never meant to support the sentence it currently supports. Two other citations were added at a later date to support the 20% contention. But what is better then this conversation is an attempt by Hordaland at compromise, which is the basis of seeking consensus. Hordaland, states he can support the removal of the "suffer" citation but not for the reasons I've stated. At this point I have options, i) I can concede the point and the citation could possibly be removed, ii) I could contest the point if it was important, ie if I still believed that ADHD children display clinically significant behaviour within the doctors office and I thought the fact in the sentence to be wrong. If I go for option two the ball is in my court and I have to put up or shut up. If I go for option one, other contributors would have to contest the point for it's inclusion or we could move on to the next issue. When Hordaland makes a concession as he just did, I am much more willing to compromise. If I do not compromise in this instance, then I may very well compromise in the near future. If a contributor never seeks consensus and never concedes a point, it's a whole different story.....

So again, who wants to work in the true spirit of Wikipedia? Step forward, I'm ready if anyone else is.--scuro (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The original ref says majority are normal. The 1981 paper says 20% and thus the 20% was added to the line. Primary research is not appropriate to use alone. Therefore the "suffer the restless child" should stay as it is a secondary source. I added the Barkley ref to show that both "side" agree that the children are usually normal in the physicians office.

I have provided three references to support one simple none contentious point. These three references provide balance to each other. Removing one or the other dose not improve things. Therefore I disagree with the removal.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

James, I'm asking people to step forward...people who want to work collaboratively. The section quoted above was just an example of how it could be done. Do you consent to working collaboratively?--scuro (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay let move onto the research.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't received a detail of what you dispute and your sources as I requested in the WQA. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking:very significant Undue weight issues, OR, biased citations, coatrack issues....and then more minor issues such as article organization. From past experience, see the "suffer" citation dispute above, I'd like to tackle one issue at time, and one specific point at a time. Name the issue and I'll get more specific. Also I believe the article to be significantly biased so I'd like to know at what point in this discussion the POV tag can go on the article. Can we put some tag on the article so that the reader knows the community is not in agreement?--scuro (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

@ Scuro: this does not address my query at all. I'd please like for you to submit details of what you disagree with and your sources to substantiate your dispute. Literally line by line examples of what's wrong, how you suggest to change it and sources to back it up. This is requisite if you truly wish to resolve things. If you're unable to do this then I'd be keen to believe those saying you're just doing this to be disruptive, which cannot continue. I don't think it's true, thus I'll be awaiting your submissions in due course. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nja, I have a two pronged approach here. First I am seeking consensus on the "suffer" citation. I want to see this process to the end because I do believe that I have never reached consensus with this editor on the talk page. Citations have been provided here recently to support what I am stating.

Secondly, I am tackling the intro with regards to coatrack and undue weight issues as requested. It is a very biased piece right now because it does not give minority opinion and seems to be a coatrack. As this larger issue get sorted out, I'm sure specific facts or contentions will be discussed. If I disagree with a particular fact or contention at that point, I will provide citations.--scuro (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said above in another section, tags are NOT for the readers; they're for the editors. First, give some specific parts (like sentences or sections) of the article that have the issues they described above and then we'll worry about the tag. If you want somewhere to start begin with Undue weight problems since it's the first thing you listed. Sifaka ^talk 14:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a wiki page with a wiki directive that states that every tag's only purpose is as part of the editing process? I'd like to see that page. Notwithstanding the public usefulness of a tag, tags also alert others editors that there are problems. When other contributors purposefully and unilaterially edit war to keep tags off of a page, they are blocking the editing process. This type of page ownership tries to establish one version of the article and as such is not NPOV. The article needs a POV until the consensus process is being used and POV issues are being dealt with.--scuro (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm task oriented. I'd like to first finish off with the "suffer" citation. Horeland was seeking consenus. If better citations have been added, and the "suffer" citation wasn't originally intended to support the sentence it follows, why is it there? As Horeland stated, it is a "denier" citation and as such is biased. It shouldn't support a fact that was determined through research.

As to undue weight issues, I'd start with the intro. The intro makes it seem that Everything about ADHD is controversial. On the talk page there is a discussion about the public and scientific perception of the disorder. The case that the majority viewpoint of both the scientific and medical community believes that ADHD is a very controversial diagnosis is weak. By making minority viewpoint, or even fringe viewpoint seem like the majority viewpoint, major undue weight issues have been created.--scuro (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(sorry to cut into your splice- but personally I think it rude to cut into someone else's post. You destroy a line of thought by doing that. I hope you don't mind that I moved it to the front of your most recent entry and I'd kindly ask you to avoid doing this in the future.)--scuro (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to cut into the middle of your paragraph, but I think consensus was exercised, it was against the POV tag. Secondly no, I don't have a guideline for the use of tags, but I have been editing Wikipedia for 4 years now and I have felt that that has been the prevailing feeling about the responsible use of tags. (I didn't create a username for about a year so that's why Sifaka is only 3 years old). Sifaka ^talk 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus isn't a vote or even a group of contributors who seem to think the same thing. Consensus is a process, whereby you seek agreement. I can tell you for sure that no attempt at consensus was ever made. What I had was an incredible amount of flack, multiple reverts, and in the end a contributor who edit warred so that he could get a 3R judgement against me. That was followed up in quick succession by a Wikietiquette probe and my posts on talk being removed. That is about as anti-consensus as I can think of. There was absolutely no intent of working together.--scuro (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the splice. I'll avoid doing that in the future. What I meant when I used "consensus" is that everyone but you seemed to be against it. Be bold once, but trying to readd the same thing four times ([9] [10] [11] [12] [13]) after the original edit is reverted is like trying to break a brick wall by hitting your head with it: not an intelligent choice and more liable to hurt you than the wall. After the first or second time it got removed you should have stopped and tried to seek consensus on the talk page and listed specific violations like several other editors including myself asked you for before reopening the discussion about adding the tag. (Please note I said reopening the discussion, not adding the tag back) Failing that, you should have gone on and called an RFC about the tag. One was called and it didn't solve much, so then you should have sought other methods of dispute resolution instead of simply readding the tag and engaging in an edit war. Possibilities include asking at the Wikiproject page, the Neutral point of view Noticeboard, or conducting a survey. Failing all those then request formal mediation. It takes two people to edit war, and you are just as guilty as anyone who removed your n-NPOV tag of not compromising and not intending to work together. Sifaka ^talk 00:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Right you are about me being as guilty as anyone but remember that the POV tag states right on it not to remove it without resolving the conflict, and also who got punished here, everyone? So if I am still annoyed at the anti-consensus climate of this page, I hope you can understand the reasons behind my frustration. To me the article still has major flaws and there is no reason it should not still be up there.--scuro (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to say thank you for pointing out specific areas of concern. This will greatly facilitate my working with you.

About the suffer citation I really don't care if it's there as long as there are other RS's are supporting the statement. I haven't read it so I'm not sure if it's biased or not. I would not mind if it got removed if it's superfluous and even potentially questionable because that would save time arguing about it.

I agree that the intro places too much weight on certain aspects of the controversy like existence versus non existence, rather than issues like best method of treatment and whatnot, which is a more important debate as far as mainstream practice goes. I sandboxed the intro on a subpage and have started trying to reword it to give more emphasis to the prevailing scientific opinion and in what "theaters" certain debates are taking place somewhat like the list of active debates about ADHD and who is debating them somewhat like I listed up above. It's a work in progress at this point. As soon as I get it cleaned up some more I'll post it here for comments. Sifaka ^talk 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your first attempt. I think attempts are wonderful in wikipedia. I don't have much time at the moment but will come to it later tonight. My first thought is that this issue also touches on issues being discussed on the ADHD. Should we invent the wheel twice?--scuro (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by reinventing the wheel since this is tailored for the controversies page, but I'll await your more indepth explanation. Sifaka ^talk 00:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

scuro wrote [15:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)]: "As Horeland stated, it is a "denier" citation and as such is biased." I would like to point out that I have not said that the source is biased, quite the contrary.

(Might also point out that Hordaland is the name of a province in Norway. The word Horeland in Norwegian would mean [the] land of whores. I don't think there's more prostitution here than anywhere else... :-)) - Hordaland (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)