Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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://wiki.riteme.site/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:[1] 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,[2], "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:[3]. 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 [4]. 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://wiki.riteme.site/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://wiki.riteme.site/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://wiki.riteme.site/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. [[5]]

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://wiki.riteme.site/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 [[6]] 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 ([7] [8] [9] [10] [11]) 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)

First pass at a new introduction

Ritalin 10mg Pill (Ciba/Novartis)

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most controversial psychiatric disorders despite being a well validated clinical diagnosis. The causes, the etiology, the diagnosis, and the treatment of ADHD have been the subject of active debate at least since the 1970s.

Researchers from McMaster University 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.
5. The rates of diagnosis and of treatment substantially differ across countries.

Lack of clarity on exactly what qualifies as ADHD and changes in diagnostic criteria have caused confusion and concerns about misdiagnosis. Ethical and legal issues with regard to treatment are also areas of concern, such as the promotion of stimulants to treat ADHD by groups and individuals who receive money from drug companies. Children compromise the majority of ADHD diagnoses,^{(Citation needed here)} but because they are unable to give informed consent due to their age, treatment decisions are ultimately determined by their legal guardians on their behalf.

The best course of ADHD management is also a source of debate. Stimulants are the most commonly prescribed medication for ADHD and "when used with medical supervision, are usually considered quite safe". However, the use of stimulant medications for the treatment of ADHD has generated controversy because of undesirable side effects, uncertain long term effects, and social and ethical issues regarding their use and dispensation.

Although the diagnosis and its genetic and physiological basis have a high level of support from clinicians, most medical authorities, and the U.S. Court, a number of alternative theories explaining the symptoms of ADHD have been proposed which range between describing ADHD as part of the normal spectrum of behavior to rejecting its existence outright. These views include the Hunter vs. farmer theory, Neurodiversity, and the Social construct theory of ADHD.

Suggestions, improvements, sources to add? What do you guys think? Sifaka ^talk 20:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good intro. We should also address the fact that because the treatments involve children who often are not able to give consent things are more controversial.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried to bring in the informed consent factor, but I'm not sure it does the issue justice. I could also use a source saying that most diagnoses are made in children, but due to my current computer location, I'm blocked by paywalls from searching. Sifaka ^talk 21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole McMaster part should be considered. It is from 1999, citing sources from 1982-1998. What they wrote or concluded at the time does not necessarily apply today. The sources mentioned in McMaster as the references to "those who regard it as a myth" are these two[(4)] [(5)]. As you may see, probably not the best material for a present-day introduction. I can see several things I would do differently, but the McMaster part is the only thing I consider important for now. --Sportsmand (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

When you say the whole McMaster part should be considered, you mean remove it? I'm hitting paywalls (so I can't read it) for one of the sources that are mentioned in McMaster as "those who regard it as a myth". The one article I can read - An Epidemic of ADD or a Matter of Overdiagnosis? Does ADD Really Exist?- I don't see why it was wrong for McMaster to cite it, but I think I'm missing your point. What is the problem with those references?

Concerning the outdated part, true McMaster is older than some of the other sources we have but for the five elements they list 1, 3, and 4 are definitely still applicable. I'm not sure about diagnosis rates in other countries (5), and how stable the diagnostic criteria have been recently (2). While not essential, McMaster does sum up some, but not all, of the major points of debate about ADHD. Anyone else have anything to say about 2 and 5 and McMaster in general? Without McMaster, the opening looks like this. Sifaka ^talk 00:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I consider the conclusion of the McMaster study relevant: "Most published systematic reviews and metaanalyses on the treatment of ADHD have limited value for guiding clinical, policy, and research decisions. A rigorous, systematic review following established methodological criteria is warranted". It seems that they question the very material they were asked to analyze, or at least substantial parts of it. They mention "Most reviews had major methodological flaws".

It is not clear from the source how they actually came to conclude the mentioned 5 features. It could look like it is from their sources 1,2,4,5,6 or 7. When I question the features, is it particularly because features 1 and 3 are obviously misleading. To my knowledge the very same applies to most, if not all neuropsychological disorders. To me, it looks like these statements may well have come from the questionable sources mentioned as 5 above. It is the one you can read I believe. Obviously, I cannot be sure. But it can probably be investigated if needed.

No, I am not really sure what to do about it. It is probably also a question about how we value and validate our sources. --Sportsmand (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay after looking at the intro, I'll give you my impressions. There are many problems with the intro but the biggest problem is that in the real world, there is no real far reaching controversy in medical and scientific circles. I don't get that sense at all in reading the article. It seems that everything is controversial. I don't see that divide between those who strongly believe everything is controversial and those who see little that is controversial. This would be majority and minority opinion. Each position isn't defined. To tell you the truth it is a laughable first paragraph. It is a collection of snippets from assorted sources to create a reality. Not only is this the most studied childhood disorder, I'd bet any money it also most written about disorder. I could probably make any contention and support it with citations that are not dubious at first glance. Undue weight is a HUGE problem. A start would be to move this sentence further up, into the opening line, "the diagnosis and its genetic and physiological basis have a high level of support from clinicians, most medical authorities, and the U.S. Court". That is the way any controversy article is supposed to start. Describe the majority opinion first.--scuro (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have commented on you statement here to editor Nja247 as you may see below. The suggestion you make concerning moving up the cited statement may be an adequate step. However, in the context of valuing and validating our sources, the cited statement may actually illustrate another issue we probably need to discuss at some point: Americanism or whatever it is properly called. Editor Hordaland in the ADHD talk page, and editor Sifaka in this talk page above, have presented certain 'structures of understanding' that may be useful for us separating the various aspects of controversy. Expanding of merging these could be a tool for us and help us agree what proportion and placement the various sources should have.--Sportsmand (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The McMaster paper looks fine to me. They make a good summary of the controversies and don't see anything flawed or quackery about their analysis of the controversies.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that McMaster in any sense should be seen as "flawed or quackery". The problem is that its "analysis of the controversies" seem to be no analysis at all. It is merely a listing of elements and we cannot determine how this listing came to be. Could I ask you to comment on my main concern, the fact that we are using "somewhat questionable" and old sources and giving them prominent placement in the article head? With this I mainly refer to the sources McMaster themselves did use. --Sportsmand (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If scuro you want to describe the majority opinion first then provide sources. The problem remains is you are trying to gain consensus via your views and opinions when wikipedia works via reliable sources which you are not providing.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in that statements need backed up with reliable sources. I have left a note on his talk page about providing details of what exactly he disputes with sources. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I see editor Scuros comment above as a personal comment to me related to the source discussed. At the moment, I tend to agree with editor Scuro that the placement of the McMaster source may actually represent undue weight. I don't understand the call for "reliable sources" in this instance. It is the value of the source at hand we are trying to assess. Editor Scuro, as I understand it, asserts the opinion that the placement of this source may represent a symptom of a greater issue. Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong, but the point he made represent one of the issues we are trying to resolve. --Sportsmand (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sifaka, you note that a citation is needed for the claim that "Children compromise the majority of ADHD diagnoses." Doing just a bit of OR, that almost has to be the case. The article Adult ADHD says "The symptoms (see below) need to have been present since before the age of 7 and interfere with at least 2 spheres of functioning (at home and at school/work, for example) over the last 6 months." New diagnoses of adults "requires retrospectively establishing whether the symptoms were also present in childhood..." - Hordaland (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked on the discussion in a while, but it seems like people seem to prefer this intro over the current one. Some aspects of it have yet to be worked out, but I'm going to go ahead and change it to the version without McMaster since people seem to have some issues with this source (I'm not sure all the issues are still current) and let the rest of you editors keep working out the kinks. (Later edit) Actually I'm going to use the McMaster version because that introduces the least change. I'll leave McMaster up to you guys/gals. Sifaka ^talk 19:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"suffer" citation

There are now three contributors who see no value in having the "suffer" citation as a support for research done in the past. Specifically the Dr.'s office observation. We would seem to be forming a consensus here.--scuro (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position on the suffer citation is that I don't care. My quote from above is "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." Sifaka ^talk 01:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of this article, it's not really that important. As an indicator of healthy consensus building it's important. If better citations were found and placed with it, then it should be removed. I'll do so shortly unless I hear from anyone.--scuro (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be kept.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it should be deleted. It isn't inaccurate and is backed up by 2 other refs. If you feel the refs have been taken out of context we could discuss that if you like.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Sifaka. --Hordaland (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Barkley's cites an article called "suffer the restless child" in one of his books. Therefore why should we not cite it? http://books.google.com/books?id=T3zarJqFDbwC&pg=PA134&dq=Suffer+the+Restless+Children&ei=o_4BSvLFD6DCM73F1OQJ --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Suffer the Restless Children"[[12]] is not written by the same author as the paper entitled, "Suffer the Restless Children: ADHD, Psychostimulants, and the Politics of Pediatric Mental Health".[[13]] Neither citation is an academic work. The "suffer" citation used in the article doesn't even appear to have been published by academic journal. But rather, as Hordaland pointed out, a paper presented at the American Political Science Association annual meeting. I found it most ironic that the Atlantic monthly "suffer" article stated this about Dr.'s office visits:"Even though studies have shown that a child cannot be properly diagnosed on the basis of an office visit, a California survey of pediatricians revealed that the way children acted in front of them "seemed to be the most important characteristic in physician judgments."

Lets break this down to the most basic level. Do we all agree that the "suffer"citation as it currently sits on the page supports a clinical observation from the following scientific paper: “Can the Physician Diagnose Hyperactivity in the Office,” Pediatrics 67 (January 1981)?[[14]] --scuro (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have ordered the book that the suffer citation is based on. Will switch it to that when the book arrives.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

James I really don't mean to be rude, so I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but are you suggesting that you can't connect the info on the links provided above, to make a very basic judgement, until the book you ordered arrives and you have read it?!??--scuro (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Found an on line version of the book and removed the suffer article.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

We have the same author, the same idea, and I believe as Hordaland suggested, the same link to the same "Diagnose in the office" 1981 study. So James the question still remains, do we all agree that the Mayes book version as it currently sits on the page supports a clinical observation from the following scientific paper: “Can the Physician Diagnose Hyperactivity in the Office,” Pediatrics 67 (January 1981)?[[15]]--scuro (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So I take there is no objection to the removal of the Mayes citation...and if there is could you answer the questions asked previously? Wikipedia wants contributors to answer questions from other contributors.--scuro (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The book authored by Mayes and 2 others looks like a good source to me. - Hordaland (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but one step at a time. A question was asked and it's still unanswered.--scuro (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Good source should be kept. Not sure what it is referencing. Waiting for book to arrive.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

James I've asked you repeatedly to answer the question above and by not answering it, it looks like avoidance. Please help clear matters up. The question goes to the heart of the matter, which is if this source is a good source for the sentence it supports.--scuro (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

James the ball has been sitting in your court for some time now. Would you mind if I tagged the citation while we wait? Would that be an acceptable compromise? It could be removed once you have received and read the book, and determined that the book doesn't draw the same conclusions from the same sources.--scuro (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

the intro -coatrack, undue weight issues

The whole issue with this article is that it is a controversy article yet it doesn't follow the policies stated for a controversial article. Here are some basic questions that need to be answered:

1. What is the controversy?
2. What is the majority and minority viewpoint about the controversy?
3. Have both viewpoints been stated clearly with due weight according to wiki standards?

As wiki states( WP:UNDUE )"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

What I'm afraid has happened is that the intro has evolved into a coatrack( WP:COATRACK ) with cherry picking of sources ( WP:CHERRY ) Wiki states, "Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias....Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader".

So Sportsmand, it's not just that the McMaster citation is quoted verbatim, at length in the intro....it's that we have no idea what the overreaching controversy is, if there is one, and who holds minority and majority viewpoint. What should really be done is that the article should be tagged POV until the many problems within the article are sorted out. It will take YEARS and YEARS if we use the "suffer" citation as indication of the potential speed of forward progress and consensus building. A tag is really warranted.--scuro (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the glacial speed at the moment is evident. I actually asserted the POV tag back when I "re-started" the controversy debate Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Dispute_resolution. So I am in favour of that. Regardless, it would probably be better if we could all agree that we need some time to debate the content and structure of (all) the articles. The POV tag would just reflect the true state of disagreement among us. I mean, we obviously have disagreed for... some time. In addition, I support the proposal of editor Hordaland below, that we actually start with clarifying what the controversies really are.

It won't be easy to deal with this I think. For example, I see that even the Methylphenidate article has a controversy section related to ADHD Methylphenidate#Controversy. I will not presently comment on that fact, only leave it to the audience to verify and value the sources mentioned in there. I think this speaks volumes about the amount of work ahead. Please take a look at this as well Methylphenidate#Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder. For example, this section uses a source from 1991 to support this entire sentence: "There is a lack of evidence of the effectiveness in the long term of beneficial effects of methylphenidate with regard to learning and academic performance". Could this sentence be obsolete? --Sportsmand (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see citations showing that the controversy is undue weight. Without citations it comes down to the POV of scuro says that it is unbalanced when wikipedia works via citations. No one is opposing you using reliable sources to add balance. If those citations exist then please do feel free to cite them to improve and develop the article. I would be opposed to the article being flagged based on an editors opinion without citations.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

LG, what exact citation do you want me to provide? As Wikipedia states, every controversy has two sides. One side is majority opinion, one side is minority opinion. Are you suggesting that there is no minority opinion in this controversy?!??? Explain please.--scuro (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You state "I would like to see citations showing that the controversy is undue weight". I agree with Scuro. This is not a question of citations but a question of the value and weight of the sources we use. This is not a matter of one citation versus another. Even if you have a valid citation does not mean that it gets any mention in WP at all. I have this impression that you may think that every citation has the same value and relevance.

LG, I have in this talk page and the ADHD talk page clearly asked you questions concerning the value and weight of material you have introduced or supports. Until now I have not gotten any answers to this at all. I would really appreciate it if you would care to give me a response. --Sportsmand (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A thought, hopefully helpful, resulting from scuro's 3 points at the top of this section. The article is entitled ADHD controversies, plural. Might it help to analyze just how many, and name what they are, before looking for majority/minority (maybe minorities) opinions in the various fora? - Hordaland (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the plural of the word. I can think of more then one controversy. If there are controvers(ies), then are we all in agreement then that everything about ADHD isn't controversial, that there isn't one over-reaching singular controversy? And if we can go one step further, that the majority viewpoint is that ADHD is a valid diagnosis and a generally accepted condition...at least in North America?--scuro (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Americanism. I'll show another example perhaps. It is the cited association Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Classification between adhd and psychopathy.

In the controversy aspect, what I call americanism probably has to do with the much more private character of the health sector and schools as compared to Europe. As I see it, the financial interests may play a bigger role in the US.

I have not counted, but presently I guess we have more than 400 references in associated articles to maintain. Next I'll do perhaps, is to simply re-validate all we have. Make list, crossreference and see what we've got.

The total Mayes source seem a useful basis. Does anyone have quick access to it? I can borrow it, but it will take several months to get I think.

Some potential controversy aspects, in addition:

• Diagnostic criteria controversial?. No, I dont see that. All professionals afaik thinks they must be improved. Public aspect? Can't really see it.
• Natural trait called disordered. Potentially.
• Overdiagnosis. Absolutely an issue.
• Underdiagnosis. Probably an issue. But controversial?
• Treatment with Stimulant and its (ab)use. This is probably the main public controversy.
• Media coverage and interest. Sales before science.

Finally, to public impression of controversy: The fact that WP states it as it does. ;-) --Sportsmand (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I support that. We need to be clear what the controversies actually are. --Sportsmand (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Your 11:55 entry looks very useful. (I missed it originally, as it wasn't placed at the bottom of the section. Wish people wouldn't do that.)

Particularly this: "Next I'll do perhaps, is to simply re-validate all we have. Make list, crossreference and see what we've got." sounds greatly helpful. But it's a major project. On a subpage of your user page, or??

I think I'll do a new section based on your bullet points. (But I'd better get to the post office first.) - Hordaland (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty well on the same page about issues as the both of you. I think you could subdivide it into medical/scientific controversy and public controversy. Each issue will have a majority opinion, and a minority opinion, and possibly also a fringe opinion, that may or may not need to be put on the page. More on that later if that issue becomes important. Majority opinion will not always be "pro" or "anti" ADHD. It won't be one sided, it will depend on the issue. On the very large issues it could even be broken down to majority and minority opinion of both medical public opinion. But what really needs to happen is that at least the intro should be boldly edited. I don't think we have to analyze this to death. We all seem to be on the same page and working in consensus. I have faith that either of you can edit the page with an eye for neutrality. Right now as the page stands, the article is very one sided. Wikipedia states that one need not be perfect when one edits and we can improve it as we go along. I'd do it but there has been such a lengthy history of page ownership I don't think one word of my edit would be allowed to stick on the page, and by me simply editing another edit war could happen.--scuro (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Scuro's point: currently it is pretty vague who (general public, practicing psychiatrists, the researchers, mainstream vs. minority vs. fringe) is arguing what points about which topics. The scope of these debates is something that is important to get across; however; it's also kind of hard to describe comprehensively who is arguing what without doing OR. As an example, I've concluded that not to many people debate that stimulant medications are the prefered treatment of choice even though it's pretty clear there are long terms unknowns and drawbacks because I have read quite a few of papers and websites about ADHD and noticed that the stimulant drawback is rarely brought up in mainstream-aligned sources. However this observation is definitely OR. I haven't found a good assessment that I could use as a source which explicitly says these people debate about this while these people really don't. It's going to be difficult to express this without some published material that gives an objective overview of ADHD controversy. Sifaka ^talk 19:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuro: It is quite common to paste in on the Talk page a paragraph or part of a paragraph from the article and then write one's proposed revision of that -- for discussion. On some pages it's almost required. So do that, if you wish, instead of editing and fearing reverts. But if you do, please make a new heading (thread) for each suggestion. It's hard to read looong threads anyway, and near impossible when they include several topics. - Hordaland (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of every controversy page should state majority opinion. This sentence has stayed on the page for sometime now, in some form. "The diagnosis and its genetic and physiological basis have a high level of support from clinicians, most medical authorities, and U.S. federal courts". From there you could clearly state where the major controversies exist. that is what I would do as a start to remove the major bias of this article.--scuro (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See section above

I said I'd start a new section to sort out what controversies exist/need be covered. Sifaka already started such a section : ADHD Issues where there is active debate. Let's use - and add to - that.

I've added some comments and have tried to place Sportsmand's recent points there, too. - Hordaland (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The very first paragraph

I've just been reading WP:Lead. An article's very first paragraph must define the topic and establish significance/notability and context of the subject/topic. It should, with few exceptions, include the article's title, in bold. The present first paragraph is:

This is a sub-article to Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

The causes, diagnosis, and the treatment of Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have been the subject of active debate at least since the 1970s. ADHD is one of the most controversial psychiatric disorders despite being a well-validated clinical diagnosis.

I'd like to include the title of the article, bolded, in the first line, as is usual. My attempts sound stilted, so perhaps this is one of the exceptions.

I do not agree with scuro when s/he says "The first sentence of every controversy page should state majority opinion." The 1st sentence of any article should define & establish its subject, which, in this case is not opinion. The page's title is not Opinions about ADHD nor Opinions about ADHD controversies.

Rather, I agree with LK who commented above "The first sentence of the article should describe what the controversy about ADHD is. Statements about how controversial it is can follow, but only after what about ADHD is controversial has been described."

Does the 1st paragraph satisfy the criteria?

• Context: subject area (psychiatry) & time (since the 70s)
• Definition: active debate (?)
• Notability: ditto (?)

One could expect the 1st sentence to echo the 1st sentence of the controversies section of ADHD, so the only improvement I'd suggest is, perhaps:

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most controversial psychiatric disorders, despite being a well-validated clinical diagnosis. The causes, diagnosis, and the treatment of ADHD have been the subject of active debate at least since the 1970s.

I do agree with scuro that the sentence "The diagnosis and its genetic and physiological basis have a high level of support from clinicians, most medical authorities, and U.S. federal courts" needs be in the lead somewhere, which it is. It's also alluded to in the first paragraph: "despite being a well-validated clinical diagnosis."

My conclusion: the first paragraph needs few if any changes. - Hordaland (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Earlier I asked some questions which illumiated flaws with this article. The questions are still relevant.

1. What is the controversy?
2. What is the majority and minority viewpoint about the controversy?
3. Have both viewpoints been stated clearly with due weight according to wiki standards?

Wikipedia has policy on controversy pages. Here for: controversy-WP: controversy, undue wieight-WP:UNDUE and fringe viewpoint-WP:FRINGE. Below you will find a passage specifically about weighting majority and minority viewpoint in a controversy article:

In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view). The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail so the reader understands how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should clearly be identified and explained.

So Hordaland, I respectfully disagree with your opinion that little change is needed. There is, "roll up your sleeves", work to be done. I'm ready when you are. ;) --scuro (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is about a (or several) controversy and a controversial issue. It's not (except among its editors) a controversial article. Neither is it an article "specifically on the minority viewpoint". - Hordaland (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm very confused. If a viewpoint is a majority viewpoint, what is it doing on this page? It should be on the main ADHD page. By having a clear majority viewpoint topic on a controversy page, undue weight issues are created. What really needs to be done is that someone clearly state, where there is controversy and indicate majority minority opinion for those controversy(s). I'd edit the page myself but there is a lengthy history of any edit of mine disappearing rather quickly off the page. Take a look at the guidelines once more. Once you start to see that every controversy has two sides, usually with minority and majority opinion, and you indicate that on the article, it goes a long way in eliminating bias.--scuro (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You're saying simultaneously what is a majority viewpoint doing on this page? and we need to indicate majority minority opinion. I agree with the 2nd and don't understand the first. Majority opinion needs to be stated to make sense of what minority opinion doesn't agree with. - Hordaland (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hordaland is right. Wikipedia should not be balkanized, so that different pages ending up espousing different viewpoints. Both this page and the main ADHD page should have the same basic viewpoint, that is, it should describe all viewpoints with their due weight. The difference between this page and the main ADHD page is that this page should expand on the disagreements, controversies, and reasons for the controversies, and leave out issues that are irrelevant to the controversies. I like to think of it as a hyperlinked book with a single author. It should be consistent, and different articles let you explore particular topics further.

However, Scuro is also right in that the lead needs to outline what the controversies are, instead of getting so much into why the controversies exist. Hordaland's recent edit was a step in the right direction, but more can be done I think. In fact, I feel that much of the lead would serve better as a section titled 'Reasons for controversy'.

LK (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm making a preliminary edit in that direction. LK (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you LK for reasoning and listening to my viewpoint. It is appreciated. The danger with every controversy page is that you can have a POV fork, a coatrack if you will. Where we get a collection of everything anyone has ever stated as being controversial, making it onto the article. Where unrelated topics and fringe opinion finds a place to live under the protection of legitimate facts. But, I have to say your first edit is welcomed step in the right direction.

I probably didn't express myself well enough on my last edit. The point I was getting at is if we have a clear and obvious example of majority opinion, it should be on the main page and not just on the controversy page. I have no problem with the hyperlink concept. The paragraph needs to be refined further. Who holds majority and minority opinion? Are controversies still ongoing?...and then not giving undue weight to minority opinion and especially fringe opinion. For instance, the Social construct theory of ADHD believes that ADHD is nothing more then a construction of society. In a nutshell, that it doesn't exist. That would be a fringe opinion and definitely shouldn't be in the lead.--scuro (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at the main ADHD article, and I see what you mean. The paragraphs there on the controversies do not mention that "... the diagnosis has a high level of support from clinicians, most medical authorities, and U.S. federal courts, ...". Since this is well referenced, I agree with you that the main ADHD article should mention that there is a mainstream viewpoint. LK (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like about 22% of the population of the US which has heard of ADHD does not believe it exists.Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#Skepticism_about_the_diagnosis Not sure what the numbers would be in other places. 36% of American had not heard of the diagnosis in 2002 and I am sure the numbers are much higher in other areas of the world. I personally would not calls these numbers FRINGE. If someone could find a paper on physicians that would be good to put things further into context.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Ritalin class action lawsuits they only ruled on whether the drug companies conspired to create ADHD. They did not rule on controversies within medical community or general public, only on whether there was enough evidence to demonstrate that ADHD was created by the drug companies to make money. They ruled that there was not enough evidence to suggest that and dismissed the case. It is not relevant to this article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The lawsuits are a major part of the history of the controversy, and there should at least be mention of them in this article. Perhaps not in the lead, but a full description with link to the main article should be in there somewhere. LK (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The ADHD page is receiving community wide attention for the next week. My energies will be spent there during that time.--scuro (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps LK, but not in the context that it was used in. It was used in the article to say the US courts agreed that ADHD was a valid disorder. They never ruled on that. They only ruled if the case was proven that the drug companies "made the disorder up to make money". They ruled in favour of the drug companies.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Stuff removed

Here is some stuff that was removed.

Studies on rats have suggested there could be plastic changes in personality and brain functioning after chronic use into adulthood, including changes in sensitivity to reward [16] [17]. But, again, studies in humans are lacking and so such results cannot be automatically extrapolated to humans.

These are animal studies so maybe not appropriate.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Section moved north of the references by Sifaka ^talk 19:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

disruptive editing

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors

If you want to use a direct quote from three people, it has to be attributed. Otherwise change the wording. To strip attribution for no good reason is disruptive editing.--scuro (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd remind you that "This (dealing with disruptive editors) guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree" 92.5.98.114 (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

To me it's more about people who force something on the page and keep it there through "might is right" edit warring. If we are communicating in talk and being respectful there is no need to use the guidelines.--scuro (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you keep linking it as a reprimand to yourself? 92.1.168.244 (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have brought Scuro editing to the ANI. Hopefully we can get this dealt with do that we can once again start improving the page. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#The_ADHD_article_and_Scuro --Doc James (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I've pretty much given up on any idea of consensus with Scuro and think I'll be alright to improve this article, as long as he's clearly in the wrong and I stick to talking about content there's nothing much he can do about it. Part of me suspects he'll simply wait until I've 'finished' and then change it all back again a bit at a time though :/92.4.125.88 (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes so have I. They only way things can really continue is if he gets banded from editing these pages. So they can once again be edited and improved. Doc James (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

--24.151.119.232 (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC) (Simon Sobo, MD) Looks like nothing has changed with Scuro, only the people (like me) who finally give up after fruitless discussions, and his getting his way out of sheer persistence.

All of you are assuming bad faith. The WAN went no where because there was nothing to report. Wikipedia asks that we focus on the content and not the contributor.--scuro (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. Rather than edit warring the versions in the article, work it out here on the talk page, and keep in mind, You are all arguing moot points, and nuanced language; which can lead to Brilliant prose, but unless it's worked out, and not warred, it will go nowhere. Please, I am about request page protection here, and I'd rather not. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)