Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Opinion, for starters

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

Evidence that hyperactivity is a genetic trait

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adoption Research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed rename

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cleanup required

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

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

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

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

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

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

“See also” section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations in 'Genetic Basis of Hyperactivity'

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

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

Cleanup notice

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

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

PET scan description

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

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

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

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

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

Edits by 68.83.221.88

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the main ADHD article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should there be suggestions on this page about diagnosis?

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

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

Jay Joseph

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

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

and

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

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

Lazy parents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV

This article is just a hodgepodge of POV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source of Info/Commentary

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

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

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

Falsifiability section, second paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4th Paragraph of Skepticism of Diagnosis

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

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

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

Scientology

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

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

flogging the Zametkin dead cat

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

Removed section

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

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

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

.

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

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

Temper

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

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

This article is very biased towards the psychiatric viewpoint.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"

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

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

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

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

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

What you should say is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure.

Disorder mongering:

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

Etiology of syndrome:

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

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

Genetic basis of hyperactivity:

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

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

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

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

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

simply follow Wikipedia guidelines

WP:UNDUE

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

---

---

WP:FRINGE

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

Then we've come to an agreement.

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

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

Picture

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

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

Heredity and ADHD

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

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

On another note....

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

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

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

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

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

WikiProject class rating

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

Doesn't make a difference.

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

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

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

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

ShadowCreatorII 18:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

ShadowCreatorII 07:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Suggested edits.

Now, if we could stop the underhanded comments:

Disorder mongering:

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

Etiology of syndrome:

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

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

Genetic basis of hyperactivity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead and bow out.

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

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

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

Should this page be deleted?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[6]

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

[7]

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

[8]

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

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

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

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

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

Let's actually clean up this article.

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

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

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

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

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

the definition of controversy and how it relates to Wikipedia

From the Oxford dictionary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

better citation needed for "neurological pathology" in intro.

The introduction had:

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

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

Changed article title and fixed double redirect

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

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

step away from the computer

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

how much is really controversial?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fringe conspiracy theories?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[end of material deleted by Scuro.]

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

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

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

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

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

etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abd are you really admin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove picture?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete entire paragraph

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

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

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

major changes

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

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

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

controversies and controversy articles as related to wiki guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labeling section unbalanced

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re-write of intro

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

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

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

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

(new section head: Skepticism towards diagnosis)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On point here is this statement early in the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

following up on citations and hints in the Skeptical Inquirer article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most recent introduction is inappropriate and was reverted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sentence two -ethical and legal concerns

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

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