Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

toc

This page is not moderated. Please do not remove the comments of others. Instead, reply by adding your own. However, please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

ADD as a Hyper-focus disorder.

In my personal experience with ADD (I have it, and it runs in my family), it seems to present itself less as a general lack of focus, but a tendency to hyperfocus paired with the inability to prioritize and/or cognitively select the subject of focus. When I was younger, I tended to have the typical 'daydreaming' scenario in class, where my mind just wandered everywhere. Now I have more of a tendency to focus intently on things, but not always what is appropriate or rational. Instead of working on a proposal I have due (which cognitively should have a very high priority), I can spend endless hours on Wikipedia (significantly lower priority, but still requiring a high level of focus). Instead of paying attention in a lecture, I may instead work on deriving an extended proof for a problem for a different class, and thus completely miss what's going on in the present class. I have heard others referencing ADD as a hyperfocus disorder as well as an attention-deficit disorder. Perhaps this is something for the researchers here to discuss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.89.197.101 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Dr. Russell Barkley speaks of your observations here ->http://www.schwablearning.org/articles.aspx?r=54 - download the pdf(interesting reading)--scuro 13:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

last time

If you are looking for consensus scientific opinion, then here it is. ADHD is a mental disorder. That's why it is in the DSM. People can suggest that it is neurological and research should continue on these fronts but if it was a MAJORITY opinion that ADHD was neurological, it wouldn't be in the DSM.

All opinions are not equal and just because you can find a scientist who says something on the web, doesn't mean it is true.

I'm done with the broken-record stuff, but bottom line is that the people writing this page don't seem to understand what a mental disorder is, and that seems awfully important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.201.100.221 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

This all goes back to the instance that ADHD only exists in the DSM4 and the Psychiatrists who "made up" the disorder. Some insisted that it couldn't be "neurological in nature" if it was only a "shopping list" of symptoms.

I've got no problem with ADHD being listed in the DSM4. Different groups with different perspectives want to call ADHD different things. Some want to call it a behavioural disorder, others a neurological disorder, and yet still others want to call it a developmental disorder. Some use a combination of those terms. In Europe where they use the ICD-10 of WHO, and the DSM4 is not used, it is called hyperkinic disorder and placed in the broader classification of conduct disorders. For the longest time the ICD-10 viewed the symptoms as being caused by organic brain damage. It doesn't really matter so much who describes ADHD. Simply we have a long documented history of patterns of impaired behaviour with ADHD. It was first clinically described in 1902. Psychiatrists didn't make up ADHD in 1968 when it was first encoded in the DSM2.

That consensus statement of 2002 supports the notion that ADHD is "neurological in nature" and that is why the consensus statement was originally used as a citation for those three words. This was the segment from the opening sentence that was deleted several times and which started these many discussions on the subject. Some were strongly opposed to the inclusion of those three words. This is what all this has been about. Some still want those three words removed but there is ample and highly reliable and citable support for those three words. For me also I hope this is the last time we kick this particular can.

--scuro 17:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion in the DSM-IV does not even remotely constitute a refutation of the neurological nature of a given disorder. Autism is a disorder of the central neurvous system. However, it is also in the DSM-IV. So, whether or not ADHD is in the DSM-IV is completely irrelevant in any argument as to whether ADHD has a neurological basis.

--CitizenKate 18:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear. The DSM is a subset of the IDC that deals specifically with mental health diagnoses, their antecedents, and co-occurring disorders.

ADHD is not classified as a mental disorder because it is in the DSM. It is a medical condition that falls into the diagnostic category of mental dysfunction, and therefore within the purview of the DSM, as a subset of the IDC. Hagerman and Scuro are putting hte cart before the horse.

As for ADHD being a neurological condition, any medical anomoly evidencing non-linear brain function, acute, chronic, debilitating, or treatment manageable, constitutes a neurological condition, whether there is a genetic component, a hereditary component or an environmental insult as a precursor to said anomoly.

That said, it's both. DashaKat 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT

Oh, it makes sense now. If you take an international consensus statement signed selectively by clinicians who treat ADHD as a biological disorder, maybe THEY do define it as neurological. But that international consensus statement is by no means an unbiased document.

The NIH consensus statement from 1998 defines ADHD a "behavioral disorder" http://consensus.nih.gov/1998/1998AttentionDeficitHyperactivityDisorder110PDF.pdf ...the word "neurological" does not appear in the text of that document.

I can't believe you guys used the International Consenus statement as one of fact!!! That's the opinion of only those who see ADHD in a certain way. It's an ADVOCACY document.

THe NIH review above does not even use the word 'neurological.'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you not understand the difference between a PR statement by scientists with a certain point of view and a NIH review????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

You mean the Consensus Statement that has written at the top in giant red letters:

This statement is more than five years old and is provided solely for historical purposes. Due to the cumulative nature of medical research, new knowledge has inevitably accumulated in this subject area in the time since the statement was initially prepared. Thus some of the material is likely to be out of date, and at worst simply wrong. For reliable, current information on this and other health topics, we recommend consulting the National Institutes of Health's MedlinePlus

That Consensus Statement?--Mrdarcey 14:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of the joke about the zealots in heaven

St. Peter is doing the tour of heaven for all the newcomers. He shows them the pearly gates, god's throne, and the stables of the horses for the four horsemen. After several hours of touring they enter the backlot of heaven where there is a larger building with many rooms. St. Peter shhheshhhs everyone as they walk by the building. After they are a safe distance from the building one of the new comers asks St. Peter why they had to be so quiet near the building. St. Peter replied, "that building holds all the religious zealots in separate rooms and we have to be quiet because they all think they are the only ones here in heaven".

Okay, ADHD is a behaviour disorder period. It doesn't exist outside of the DSM4. It was made up by Psychiatrists who were in cahoots with the drug companies so everyone could get rich. No one can be trusted, they have all been corrupted by drug money...Wikipedia too!!!!!!!!!!!!

All kidding aside, it would be nice to know your name 68.35.248.242..... See this link to give yourself a name. ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_%28Registration%29 --scuro 23:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

good joke

That's a good joke but I think people are missing the point. It doesn't minimize the severity of ADHD, or say much about drug companies or psychiatrists to say that ADHD is a mental disorder. It's just a fact that NIH calls it a behavioral disorder and that all the research cited throughout the piece uses the DSM definition of ADHD, therefore what else could it be referring to?

If ADHD is not the existence of the DSM symptoms, what is it? Those criteria are the only thing that make it possible for it to be reliable- not that it is in actual practice, but that's another issue.

It's not 'JUST' anything...! Schizophrenia is serious and it's a mental disorder- it's not considered a neurological disorder. Same thing with major depression, PTSD, panic disorder, anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder. None of them are 'neurological' and they are as serious, actually more so, than ADHD.

'Neurological' sounds good but is not correct.

If you all are using the international consensus statement signed by the proponents of medication treatment of ADHD, I thin that's a huge error. Not just for this part of the entry but any part.

And between the NIH consensus statement and the DSM, I think it's very clear that ADHD is a MENTAL DISORDER, period.

68.35.248.242 00:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Phil

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/adhd/adhd.htm Looks like the NIH doesn't have such a consensus.... although they may consider it a mental disorder, a more descriptive name they have used more recently is Neurobehavioral Disorder. User:Edward Bower24.148.48.31 02:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have ADHD but other docters say bipolar could they be right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jla 2000 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delisting GA

This article fails WP:WIAGA on the following:

• WP:LEAD is not a thorough summary of the article.
• The History section is listy, and should be converted to prose
• Numerous statements are uncited, original research is present in causes, and highest quality reliable sources are not used in all cases (some sources are personal websites)
• It is not stable, with disputes over basics like whether the condition is a neurological disorder.
• WP:MOS issues, for example, pls read WP:DASH and correct usage of dashes and hyphens throughout the article
• Pls see Project guidelines at WP:MEDMOS

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny that talks in the discussion area about ADHD being "neurological in nature" has now been used to characterize the article as "not being stable". Good one! We have consistently argued that ADHD is "neurological in nature", over a lengthy period of time. Sandy, if you see uncited, original research, and personal websites...is it not easier to to eliminate them then denigrate the quality of the article? Finally, if you have "cleaned up the article" why complain about it here?

--scuro 12:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oversimplication of the situation; if you'll read the history, you'll see I've been saying since October that this article never met GA criteria, and the problems are too large for me to undertake alone. I'm not complaining, I'm listing items for editors to work on. (See the FAC in Article Milestones.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Check one (The History section is listy, and should be converted to prose) of your items off. --scuro 14:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the delisting. I'd also like to note that Sandy's comment didn't take a position on the neurology issue, only pointed out that there is a dispute (which in my opinion has gotten rather juvenile and completely unproductive) --Ginkgo100^talk 16:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I did take a position on the neurology issue; I edited the article. At any rate, that isn't the biggest problem with this article, and it's just a minor distraction right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"neurological in nature"

User:68.35.248.242, the consensus statement that you refer to is not the consensus statement used as a citation. The consensus that you referred to of 1998 is titled, "Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)". The consensus used as a citation from 2002 is called, "International Consensus Statement on ADHD". The 2002 document makes a strong case that ADHD is real, in the brain, and that there is a good deal of neurological evidence showing the genetic contribution to the epidemiology of the disorder. Specifically from the document, "This is why leading international scientists, such as the signers below, recognize the mounting evidence of neurological and genetic contributions to this disorder". --scuro 12:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because a handful of fringe scientists want to medicalize the disorder doesn't mean it is neurological. That isn't how science works. Any time someone refers to "mounting evidence," you can bet it is a scam.--Jkhamlin 17:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you just call ADHD a scam? -- Ned Scott 18:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well he certainly did call Russell Barkley (SUNY), Thomas Brown (Yale)and Lawrence Adler (NYU), amongst others who teach and research at places called Yale and Harvard, "fringe scientists". Astounding given that Brown wrote the most widely used diagnostic assessment for AD/HD. He also stated, if I remember correctly -- I am AD/HD, afterall -- that there was no proof of other psychiatric ailments being nuerological in basis. Again astounding.

Allow me to add to the debate, if I can, with peer reviewed sources. Here are several from Dr HK Manji of Harvard (and the NIH/NIMH) -- one of the world's leading researchers of bipolar disorder -- discussing the underlying neurobiology and neuroplasticity of the brian in bipolarity (I discuss bipolarity here because of its close etiology with AD/HD -- poor density in the prefrontal cortex, though AD/HD is also related to Basal Ganglia disfunction):

Neuroplasticity and cellular resilience in mood disorders

The underlying neurobiology of bipolar disorder

The Neurobiology of Bipolar Disorder

Neural Circuitry and Neuroplasticity in Mood Disorders: Insights for Novel Therapeutic Targets

Here is a simpler interview with Manji in which he discusses demonstrated neuron loss in repeatedly manic patients, and how lithium and anti-convulsants, particularly valproic acid, act as neuro-protectives, and actually have been demonstrated to assist in neuron regrowth in the prefrontal cortex in bipolar patients:

Interview with Husseini, Manji M.D.

More germane to the topic of AD/HD, here are several articles from Thomas E Brown, author of the Brown AD/HD diagnostic scale, on AD/HD as a neurologic developmental disorder leading to poor executive functioning skills:

DSM-IV: ADHD and Executive Function Impairments

Executive Functions and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Implications of two conflicting views

Note the quotes

In recent years, researchers have begun to recognize that [AD/HD] is ... a developmental impairment of a complex range of executive functions (EFs) ... The general consensus is that they [EFs] include a wide range of central control processes of the brain that connect, prioritize, and integrate other functions needed for self-management. Executive functions appear to be centered in the prefrontal cortex, though other brain regions such as portions of the cerebellum are also involved.

and:

Despite alterations of nomenclature [in subsequent versions of the DSM], increasing numbers of researchers have been studying cognitive impairments associated with ADHD. Many have utilised various cognitive tests originally developed by neuropsychologists to evaluate for frontal lobe impairments from stroke, schizophrenia, or traumatic brain injury.

All of this helps to explain the efficacy of psychostimulants in the treatment of AD/HD's chronic symptoms. The medications aid transmission and reuptake of dopamine and norepinephrine, resulting in better synaptic response in affected areas of the brain. The similar model supported for anti-depressants such as SSRI's are also suspected by some to aid in neuronal regrowth.

Incidentally, here is a fascinating new study showing how the adult brain reproduces cells for the suspected purpose of life long learning. Neuroplasticity is such an important concept in understanding how psychiatric disorders are rooted in both the biologic and enviornmental. Though psychiatry and neurology are in their infancy as disciplines, we are learning exponentially more each day. We can now even see down to neuronal responses and growth:

A Critical Period for Enhanced Synaptic Plasticity in Newly Generated Neurons of the Adult Brain

I'm trying to assume good faith, and it is possible I have musunderstood and misrepresented something user:Jkhamlin has written. But that anyone with significant biologic coursework and an eventual interest in medical practice or research would deny that the overwhelming amount of research being produced as regards to AD/HD, and other mood and psychiatric disorders supports a neurologic basis for mental illness is either, well, astounding, or calls into question their university's accreditation. I would think a simple search of PubMed could instantly provide hundreds of double-blind, repeatable, peer reviewed medical research supporting such a neurobiologic basis.

Cheers, Mrdarcey 01:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I missed [user:Jkhamlin]'s comment above about schizophrenia and bipolarity having organic causes. I managed to conflate his arguments with those of the unsigned poster who continually rants about nothing in the DSM having a biological componant. I still believe the basic point remains: I'm not sure how you qualify the statements of the leading researchers into AD/HD, most of whom have appointments at major research universities, as "fringe science" or can dispute the fantastic amount of literature on this subject publicly available. I eagerly await any proof to the contrary.--Mrdarcey 14:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Work in progress

Glad to see work happening; for a sample, similar featured article, Tourette syndrome might be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, work... Too much time has been spent on fruitless discussions with masters of the red herring. In defending the notion that ADHD is neurological in nature I've learned a few things while researching. ADHD and Tourettes have some differences. One of the major differences is that ADHD appears to have some heterogeneous populations within the definition and that makes it difficult to make difinitive declarations about the disorder. For instance one can get the diagnosis if one has had a brain injury. There also seems to be a distinct population known as "SCT". One term that is used by researchers is "neurodevelopmental". I like that better then neurobehavioural because not all ADHD fits the disruptive behaviour profile.

Thanks for example of the Tourettes page, I'll use it as an example for further edits. I'm still kind of green with regard conventions of Wiki. --scuro 16:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tourette's populations are not homogeneous either :-) Notice how the interplay between genetic and epigenetic factors is dealt with in that article. The non-genetic factors impacting upon the genetic vulnerability to the condition are more strongly proven in ADHD than in TS, but it is still a neurological condition nonetheless (both are, with environmental impacts). At any rate, I agree about the time wasted on some issues, when this article has massive deficiencies that need to be addressed, including undue weight to speculative items while the serious research isn't even covered. I'm going to be traveling for three weeks, but let me know if I can help after that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use epigenetic in titles instead of environment factors, anyone else have any expansions on this idea or any comments? Edward Bower 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

After looking at one of your Wiki style references I do think we need to add a Prognosis, and Prevention or Screening section. I'm not going to bother with standard forms of puncuation, capitalization, or bullet styles. The intro can also be improved. I have a little time this week and I'll try to get at it. --scuro 04:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

missed the point

You missed the point. What is more reliable- the consensus among a select bunch of researchers, many of whom have extensive conflicts of interests, or the consensus from NIH...?

NIH doesn't mention neurological disorder.

This could be a good article, but it sure isn't yet, because the sources being used are not scientific sources (in the example of the neurological issue). THere are other issues throughout, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Give it up User:68.35.248.242

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

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

last word, wrong

I believe you are incorrect. Here is why.

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

If you go to the NIH Consensus Statement on ADHD (at http://consensus.nih.gov/1998/1998AttentionDeficitHyperactivityDisorder110html.htm) you will see that it defines ADHD. This is the National Institute of Health's definition of ADHD.

The Internation Consensus Statement on ADHD is simply the point of view of some ADHD researchers. Indeed, some of them are very prominent. But it has a clear bias. They cite no evidence to demonstrate an empirically-driven change in position from 1998 to 2002.

To say that NIH's conclusions should be discarded in lieu of this open letter is very interersting and difficult to justiy. On what basis would you conclude that NIH is wrong (the word 'neurological' does not appear in the text of the document).

It seems to me that scientific consensus is important when it supports people's point of view, but when it doens't, other sources are quickly found.

Neither the 1998 NIH statement nor the DSM define ADHD as neurological. Yet it still defined that way here on the basis of this open letter.

Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2007

You say, "I believe those that author and edit this site frequently write off any criticism as coming from a radical point of view and do not stop to consider the validity of claims".

Where does this validity that you speak of come from, I ask? Certainly we are not to take your unsupported thoughts and insert them into the article? Find the references from national institutions, respected publications, or respected members in the field. So far we have no support for what you say. Since there are no references why is it not correct to classify them as controversial especially since many of the ideas stated originally can from Scientology and the Antipsychiatry movement?

I'm not even going justify your NIH comments with a response because you are once again playing games by totally ignoring the 2002 international consensus statement when you made any of your conclusions. How can you so blatantly ignore such evidence even when it has been pointed out to you directly several times? Enough already. --scuro 19:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The use of terms Epigenetic vrs. environmental

From what I have read, Epigenetic changes in genes beyond a few rare genetic conditions is far from conclusive. See Wikipedia's article on epigenetics. As far as I am aware, epigenetic occurrences with ADHD has not even casually been made. I believe the term environmental should stay. --scuro 20:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

mediate

someone should get somebody to mediate this dispute....DSM and NIH are quite authoritative... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fred1001 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

psyche

I've ignored no evidence. I've made the point before but my post was deleted. There is a difference between NIH, the DSM, and an open advocacy letter authored by scientists with a certain point of view. It's appropriate to note what they said, somewhere in the article, but to think that they have the accurate definition of what ADHD is- in contradiction to NIH and DSM- makes no sense whatsoever.

There are levels of evidence. Certainly that letter goes down the list from DSM and NIH. I am concerned that people editing his page seem to think that just because a letter says it is authoritative, and it is available on the web, it is.

In fact DSM and NIH should be used as authoritative sources and alternate points of view might be noted.

The problems with evaluating evidence can be found throughout the article, but the fact that it leads off with a definition contradicint NIH and DSM is a pretty big problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

"neurological in nature"

"neurological in nature" is cited by an excellent source in the article, that is all Wikipedia wants. Period. As Wikipedians that is all we should care about. There is no debate because once again we have no citations for any other viewpoint. I welcome new viewpoints that can be referenced. But, this is really is getting silly, can I kindly ask that unless citations are brought to the discussion area that we stop with this? You can debate this issue at ADDF forums if you like.--scuro 23:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That source is only excellent in your opinion. I refer you back to the real international consensus the DSM and the ICD.--Jkhamlin 17:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

dishonesty or confusion?

Are you kidding me? The DSM and the NIH are the two most authoritative sources and I've posted them repeatedly, they are always wiped out or edited out. The source that is being used is NOT authoritative, it is simply an open letter by some scientists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

citations

CITE #1: DSM (see above- DEFINES ADHD and does not say it is neurological) CITE #2: http://consensus.nih.gov/1998/1998AttentionDeficitHyperactivityDisorder110html.htm

THose are the citations. THere was an edit earlier which integrated both these citations but it was deleted and replaced with the International Consensus Statement.

Again, what makes that more authoritative than DSM or NIH?

No one wants to listen, they just promote their own point of view....just because ADHD involves the brain does NOT mean that it is considered a neurological issue- that's commonsensical, not good science or an accurate reflection of the way mental health is conceptualized.

need editor

{{helpme}}

I feel like this page really needs an editor to visit it.

To restate the issues that have been re-stated again and again:

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) defines what ADHD is- there are hundreds of experts that come to a consensus. This consensus document does not say that ADHD is neurological in nature.

Also as referenced above, the Consensus Statement from the National Institute of Health in 1998 did not conclude that it was neurological, and there has not been any great findings from 1998-present in terms of etiology. (The DSM definition for instance, did not change).

People keep inserting that ADHD is a neurological disorder because it involves the brain. There is a consensus statement from pro-medication advocates that calls it such but this document is simply an open letter and has no authority.

At present ADHD is a mental disorder. This is how it is classified in the DSM, in abnormal psychology textbooks, in graduate psychopathology courses, etc., etc.

There has been constant back-and-forth over this VERY simple point and people keep inserting statements that are speculative. Informatoin can be found on the web that says that ADHD is neurological but this does not mean this is scientific consensus or factual.

Someone should revise this page so that includes the DSM definition and the NIH consensus information is great also. If they want to include the statement that some people think it is neurological, fine, but the governing body in charge of defining the disorder, and the largest health research organization on the planet- neither find that it is neurological.

You're grossly misleading anyone who visits this page.

68.35.248.242 23:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Donedonedone

Please don't use {{helpme}} for content disputes... and 68, if you follow our host of guidelines/policies (eg WP:ATT, WP:NPOV), feel free to be bold in updating the page yourself (or see the manual of style for formatting issues). If someone disagrees with you and you want a third opinion, see WP:3. Gracenotes^T § 00:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To restate the issues from the perspective that the phrase "neurological in nature" should be left in the article.

-several editors over a period of time have deleted the words "neurological in nature", in the opening sentence of the main article. The only citations given for doing so was the DSM4 and the 1998 document entitled, "Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)". Both documents are used to assist in the diagnosis of ADHD. They are not authoritative or summative documents about the nature of ADHD.

-four excellent citations are used in the article to support the contention that ADHD is "neurological in nature" which includes the 2002 International Consensus Statement on ADHD which states, "This is why leading international scientists, such as the signers below, recognize the mounting evidence of neurological and genetic contributions to this disorder". Three other citations come from highly respected national mental health institutions.--scuro 12:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

neuro

I just looked up the International statement that is cited as evidence. nowhere does it claim that ADHD is neurological.

I think I am really done for real this time, but this exemplifies the problem with wiki...even the most simple facts here cannot be accurately maintained without a level of commitment that I don't have. I don't care if this entry is correct, and fact is, it's NOT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dareu2move (talk • contribs).

I've already commented waaaay above that the distinction between the two sciences is often arbitrary and artificial. You are finding more significance than there is for this situation. Also, the main reason you are getting so much resistance with this is because you are trying to change the wording as an attack on the topic of ADHD. Maybe that's just my wild speculations for your motives, maybe I'm not assuming good faith, but looking at your contribs I'd bet you're here to push a POV far more than actually improve the article. The POV pushing is obvious, that's why we revert you. This would be the same for any article, medication, children, or even something on a plant. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

it's not worth discussing anymore

The points have been made. Yes, please bring in a moderator and spare the drama.--scuro 04:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

NO POV

There is no POV here. There is an effort to make sure the information included here is scientific, a cause I fear is largely lost. Information in mental health is not commonsensical. This page at present mostly includes a common-sense but inaccurate portrayal of ADHD. I tried to modify the page so it was congruent with NIH and DSM yet this was objected to...enough said! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

further changes to make the article reach the standard of GA

Sorry if I stepped on some toes. The article was becoming a real hodgepodge of info and was visually distracting.--scuro 04:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly unreferenced statements should be deleted. As it currently reads, this article needs a good editing. Maybe someone could make some suggestions here? JohnsonRon 18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Took a crack at the opening paragraph in an attempt to meet the standard of a GA. I'm not totally pleased with my efforts. I did try to include important info but perhaps someone else can make it all flow a little better. --scuro 00:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I'm not a scientist, but I do understand that a significant factor in the discussion and editing of the ADHD article centers on making sure that the information contained therein is as scientific as possible. As I understand the scientific process, peer review by persons with expertise in the area in question is significantly important. As I read the discussion (I'm new to this aspect of Wikipedia) I found myself wanting to know the credentials of each participant to help me weigh what they had to say. Are the statements and edits in the article coming from actual peers (authorities in the medical field) or by people who just have a well-educated (and definitely better educated than me) interest?

As one who wrestles with ADHD on a daily basis (I have it and so does one of my children), I have a strong desire to see this article meet the highest standards of scientific credibility possible. As the son, brother, and brother-in-law of pediatricians (one of whom is an expert in genetics research), I understand that medicine is indeed a science and that science constantly reviews what it knows in light of new information and research. A biology professor friend of mine confirms that true science is never afraid to say, "Here's where the limits of our knowledge are. Beyond this, we don't know ... but we're trying to find out."

Just my 2 cents' worth.

15:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)MoDrig3

Every statement that I have made can be backed up by summations of peer reviewed evidence. I don't cite every point that I make because it is time consuming. If you do look at the article, some of the statements are not definitive. This is because we don't know some things about ADHD and because the diagnosis of ADHD may encompasses two or more conditions. --scuro 16:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged. As I reflect on what I perused that prompted my previous comment, it seems to me that most of the debate I read centers on 1) exactly where the limits of the scientific data are; and, 2) proper interpretation and implications of the data we do have. Having said all that, even though it is no longer considered GA, it is still very informative. 66.191.222.123 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)MoDrig3

For interpretation of data I like this off of the web. http://www.continuingedcourses.net/active/courses/course003.php

What are the limits of scientific data? There is an abundance of evidence that indicates ADHD is a real disorder which significantly impairs those with the disorder. The exact mechanisms of the disorder are unknown at this time but again there is an abundance of evidence that indicates that the disorder has a very strong herditability factor...even more so then height or intelligence.

--scuro 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You answered the question about limits in your response: "The exact mechanisms of the disorder are unknown ..." I just glanced through the course link you gave. I look forward to reading it at length in the future.

As the owner of an ADD brain and the father of a teenager who wrestles with ADD as well as Asperger's Syndrome, OCD (focus-shift, not ritual behavioral), and a non-verbal LD I will continue to reference this article regularly. I recommended it in a talk I gave last night to our local NAMI chapter on my personal experiences with ADD.

While I will probably continue to watch developments and discussion, it seems unlikely that I will have anything substantive to add. I hope and pray that the editors of this article succeed in restoring it to GA status. That would please me greatly.

Best regards. MoDrig3 16:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC) MoDrig3

The exact mechanism for all disorders are unknown. Recent studies typically point to multiple gene involvement with mental disorders...some researchers are suggesting that some may have over 10O genes so we may not have a clear mechanism for some time to come. That doesn't make OCD, ADHD, Autism, or Schizophrenia any less real.

The good article status doesn't mean a great deal. That only means the article has met Wiki standards. It's like an essay with the right form...it doesn't mean that information is conveyed in the most meaningful way possible. Nor does it mean that the best information has been selected for the article.

I edit simply so those who are new to the topic are not mislead. Since Wikipedia is an information source for many, some will try to manipulate for propoganda purposes, especially for topics like ADHD. --scuro 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternative treatment

ALternative treatments should be kept in the treatment section. We do not need new subsections. Either the alternative treatment has shown some degree of clinical success or it shouldn't make it into the main article. For this reason I have removed the brain exercise paragraph and smoking paragraph(the smoking section is good info but doesn't belong in the treatment section unless someone wants to make this case in discussion)

Another possibility is to start a new article entitled Alternative treatments for ADHD. --scuro 16:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So what is THIS? """"Treatment Main article: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder treatments There are several clinically proven effective options available to treat people diagnosed with ADHD. It has been believed that ADHD is treated most effectively, and cost efficiently, with medication.[39] However, recent long term studies now cast serious doubt to this assertion. "[D]rugs such as Ritalin and Concerta work no better than therapy after three years of treatment. The findings by an influential US study also suggested long-term use of the drugs could stunt children's growth. It said that the benefits of drugs had previously been exaggerated."[1] Psychotherapy is another option, with or without medication[40] Omega-3 fatty acids, zinc and magnesium may have benefits with regards to ADHD symptoms.[41][42]""""

What ARE the clinically proven options? We "believe" in them? Yet, there is serious doubt.

So long as our society uses Ritalin at many times the rate of other Western cultures, considerable doubts about the over-diagnosis of ADHD and the over-prescription of speed SHOULD REMAIN as part of the article. As it stands, there is NO mention of the very high Ritalin usage rate in the USA. It seems as though this has been purged. Homebuilding207.178.98.126 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference from Methylphenidate: 'Hyperactivity Paradox Resolved?'

Removed this ref from Methylphenidate, as the drugs tested didn't include that drug:

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://psychiatry.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/1999/301/1 |title=Hyperactivity Paradox Resolved? |accessdate=2006-11-11 |work=Journal Watch }}</ref>

It doesn't look like it's referenced here, but it might be an interesting thing to add in somewhere.--Eloil 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

this article should be linked to this catagory

Catagory:Neurological disorders

It should be linked to psychiatric disorders categoory. If we link it to that then we'd have to link depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, all the personalities etc. and then the category would lose its meaning. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

ADHD has links to several catatgories, you don't have to link it to just one. Either the disorder is neurological in nature or it is not. The main article documents why it belongs in that catagory.

Some disorders in the the DSM4 don't belong in that catagory because some disorders are mainly caused by enviornmental factors. Major Depression, Schizophrenia, and BiPolar would all belong in the neurological catagory.

--scuro 11:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that there is a reasonable amount of data to support the statement that ADHD is a bioneurological disorder...the effects of stimulants is one example (those with ADHD calm, those without it become quite active). I think the category is fine. JohnsonRon 16:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And differing responses to Ritalin somehow prove a neurological disorder? My friend drinks alcohol and gets argumentative. I drink alcohol and go to sleep. So what have we proved? 208.181.100.29 16:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I fear ADHD is a terribly circular diagnosis. Responding to Ritalin is sometimes the standard used. 208.181.100.20 17:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not circular. It's not *proof*, to be sure. I was diagnosed with ADHD more than a decade ago, but didn't take it very seriously. Recently, however, I was doing some work with an Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing therapist, dealing with some major childhood trauma, and she suggested I see a psychiatrist about ADHD; I did, and he prescribed Concerta, in the minimum dosage, 18 mg per day. The effect was dramatic. Her comment was "We don't like to diagnose through drug treatment, but...." The anonymous writer above making the comment about alcohol is, in fact, showing that the writer is probably not an alcoholic. Differing responses to Ritalin show some constitutional difference, or at least a personality difference. By the way, I had a bad reaction to Ritalin when I tried it as a result of that first diagnosis. I think the dosage was *way* too much. This dramatic effect with a very *small* dosage is characteristic of ADHD. But not a proof, of course! Still, dealing with indivivdual patients, rigorous proof can be too expensive or sometimes not even possible. PET scans are expensive, and properly controversial. Ritalin is cheap. (Concerta is not, to be sure, but in my case the diagnosis was not marginal.) Diagnosis by drug treatment is commonly done, in fact, with clear physical disorders, when the drug is cheap and relatively harmless and the tests are expensive or in themselves harmful.--Abd (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Digging through the Drama

Ok, after reading through some of these posts, I think it's about time that we start to dig through the drama and start working on actually getting down to some hard core research and some reliable facts about ADD/ADHD. I'd personally like to see that we all put aside all this and just quit arguing about who's right, who's wrong and what ADD/ADHD is or isn't. To be honest I'm a little disappointed that this page was removed, because some information, good, bad or otherwise, is still better than no information. I'm collecting some research on Attention-Deficit Disorder (Attention-Deficit Hyperactive Disorder) and I'd like to see that ffor the common good some other users here do as well. If we collabourate and work together we should be able to get some reliable facts, and we should be able to get this page up again to share the knowledge with others in no time. EricaSheaBell 15:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The irony of course is that you have created more drama with your post. I have no problem that the article was taken off the good article status. When the shortcomings were pointed out, I could see the difficulties. Suggestions were made to improve it. I've worked on those suggestions. I hope others follow suit. --16:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of the irony of my post. Sadly Drama is as much a part of life as breathing. For certain I will be doing what I can to improve this article with reliable facts, hopefully on the positive and negative side of Attention-Deficit Disorder. I read a while back that there was some reasurch being done to see if it wasn't so much a disorder as it was another stage of human evolution, a new way for our brains to keep up with the fast pace of technology and society. Anybody heard anything similar to this? If there's any underlying truth to it, it might be something to consider adding as part of the article. EricaSheaBell 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's controversial, from what I here, so it should go into the controversial fork off of this article, but I don't know, if you provide me with a citation then maybe it's something that's solid and I can make a better judgement on it.Edward Bower 05:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Erica, the "hunter in a farmer's society theory" proposed by Thom Hartman is quite the opposite theory, stating that it's innovative but impatient hunter children that are now diagnosed with ADHD. I haven't heard of your theory, but if you find out more about it, it certainly fits in Controversy about ADHD: Alternative theories concerning ADHD.

However, one of the criteria for ADHD is: "There must be clear evidence of significant impairment in social, school, or work functioning." So even if these alternative theories of ADHD would be correct, we're still talking about individuals that are impaired in their functioning in today's society. And ADHD is certainly not the only disorder in which the context (present day society) plays an important role.Lova Falk 08:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, the idea that ADHD would be a selective adaptation of the species is a bit of a stretch. ADHD impairs a host of cognitive skill sets and is associated with numerous diminished live outcomes. How could that benefit the species? --scuro 05:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd statement

"About 20% to 25% of children with ADHD meet criteria for a learning disorder."

Isn't ADHD a learning disability? Therefore don't 100% of children with ADHD have learning disorders? William conway bcc 05:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it gets a little complicated. Generally speaking there are two, possibly three types of ADHD. The DSM labels them as hyperactive, combo, and inattentive. Research is pointing more towards those who are or were hyperactive(former hyperactive and combo) and inattentive. Within the inattentive is a possible new subgroup which very much has an LD profile. (see sluggish cognitive tempo. The hyper and combo type is seen more as a behavioural disorder with difficulties in impulse control/behaviour and task perseverance/and what can be described as a time blindness. About the only thing that fits the LD criteria is difficulty with working memory.--scuro 12:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

However, presently difficulty with working memory is not a diagnosis criterium for ADHD, and personally I wonder if everybody with ADHD actually has difficulty with working memory, or if this is just a theory. I recently tested a kid with ADHD with excellent non-verbal working memory...

And no, ADHD is not a learning disability. There are lots of ADHD children who have no trouble learning once they get treatment and / or their environment is adjusted to their needs. Lova Falk 13:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya just to corroberate what Lova Falk said; ADHD is not said to be a learning disorder. In fact, there are some children with ADHD who may score very high on intelligence quotient tests; I am not meaning not to imply anything about the intelligence quotient scores for youngsters with learning disorders. I believe it is considered to be a developmental disorder. Edward Bower 16:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rearrangement of the opening

I rearranged the opening of the article so the information is presented in a more logical order so the characteristics of ADHD are presented first, followed by the demographics, and then finally the information on the causes of ADHD. I think this is an improvement over the previous format which had information about the causes and heritability first, then the demographics, and finally the characteristics. When someone who doesn't know what ADHD is reads this article they will want to know what the characteristics are first and then about the demographics and heritability. Other articles about disorders like bipolar disorder and clinical depression describe the characteristics first as well. If anyone has concerns or objections, I would love to discuss them with you and reach a consensus. Sifaka ^talk 02:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

restoration of text.

I am not sure what happened but a large amount of text was removed for some reason. I didn't see one on the talk page so I am restoring it. If anyone objects, please discuss it here. Thanks. Sifaka ^talk 02:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the stuff you re-added detracts from the value, I dont think it's should be here, What do you think the importance of it is?Edward Bower 03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My primary concern was that I just noticed that it was deleted all of a sudden for a reason I couldn't determine, so I fixed it. In terms of relevancy while a lot of it seems to be very drug specific and kind of nitty gritty, some of it is definitely important and should be kept for sure. ADHD coaching, questions about metabolism in people with and without ADHD, and widely used alternative treatments for example. Personally, I think people should go though the treatment section for relevancy piece by piece rather than mass delete it. Perhaps to cut down on all the drug specific bits, a separate article on treatments for ADHD could be created. Or it could be deleted. I just want to reach a consensus. Sifaka ^talk 03:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya if a consensus can be had then that would be great, but it was taken out and not questioned in talk till now so in a way that was a consensus (but a very poor quality implied consensus at best)

What if we took it all out again and then only put it back in peice by peice. But an even better idea was the one you had, about having a separate article on treatments for ADHD. I would love to collaborate with you (and others too) on making such an article.Edward Bower 06:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing from wikiprojects

I am starting to think that this article should be taken off the Psychology and Medicine wikiprojects. What do ya'll think?Edward Bower 00:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What would be the rationale of doing a thing like that? Has it been taken out of the DSM? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If there was a DSM wikiproject then it would belong in the DSM wikiproject. I don't think psychologywikiproject and medicine wikiproject adiquetly relavent to this article, I think it'd be better being in no wikiprojects. But I want to know what others think above all131.156.184.221 05:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I find the notion that a disorder listed in the DSM is not relevant to WikiProject Medicine to be bizarre in the extreme. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya I see your point, What do you make of the noton of this article being not relevant to the psychology wikiproject?131.156.184.147 22:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Edward, why would you do that? Lova Falk 06:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's in the scope of psychology wikiproject, it doesn't really matter I suppose, but I'm interested in understanding why others think it might be in the scope of the psychology wikiproject131.156.220.14 17:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate if users could use their user name or otherwise identify themselves, because I find it hard to have a discussion not knowing if I'm talking to the same person or not. Are the three users: 131.156...... all three the same person as Edward Bower, or is it four different persons???

Anyway, to get back to the discussion, saying that it's not in the scope of psychology wikiproject, doesn't really clarify anything. Why doesn't it??? I've looked at the description of the psychology wikiproject, and it says:

High: Subject contributes a depth of knowledge to the field of psychology. Most experts in psychology will be familiar with the topic. The subject can be found in most academic studies of psychology, and a significant amount of published research exists for it. Example: Schizophrenia

Mid: Subject fills in more minor details but is still important to the field of psychology. Many psychologists are knowledgeable of the topic. Published research from a variety of sources exists for the subject. Example: Big Five personality traits

Personally, I would say that ADHD might not be as well known as schizophrenia, but sure lots of psychologists are knowledgeable on ADHD, and the amount of published research for ADHD is huge. Research is done both by psychologists and psychiatrists, so according to me, ADHD belongs both to psychology and to medicine wikiproject. Lova Falk 18:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Any Psychologist who didn't know about ADHD should be fired. ADHD would make up a good deal of their business. ADHD is also the most studied childhood disorder ever with thousands of studies. I would also guess that all experts in the field would be familiar with ADHD as they would be Autism. It is a highly impairing disorder and to work in that field and be ignorant of it would be a liability. --scuro 21:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're referring to clinical psychologists. For most others, ADHD will be 0% of their business, however, they will have covered it in passing. And there are a good number of research psychologists active in studying ADHD. I think this removal has been suggested before, but didn't pass muster then. --Limegreen 21:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen many ADHD kids rip a marriage apart. Regardless, let me rephrase my statement above...Any psychologist who deals with children would make a good deal of their money from children with ADHD. Psychologists in the workplace should also know about this disorder because again, the workplace and school are the two places where the impairment is most obvious. The stats on ADHD and marriage breakdown are also notable, and a good counsellor should be up on the disorder too. Anyways...ADHD is the #1 child developmental disorder, for that reason alone it should be included in psychology category. --scuro 22:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow ya really good points, glad I didn't just remove it would have been a bad move. (and ya those other IPs were just me, sometimes my browser signs me in sometimes it doesn't, ill try to be mroe concious of it)Edward Bower 04:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Even Zametkin has stated that his PET scan study was faulty. This information needs to be removed.

The section about the PET scan studies of cerebral glucose metabolism needs to be removed. This study has been found to be unreliable to say the least. Zametkin himself could not reproduce these results and further analysis has shown errors in the the colecting and interpreting of the data. All the subsequent claims about differances in brain metabolism were based on this study. It is imparative that this false notion be stopped until it is either verified or disproven. In this article Zametkin states that he could not reproduce the results:

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996 Nov;53(11):1059-61.

Brain metabolism in teenagers with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Zametkin AJ, Liebenauer LL, Fitzgerald GA, King AC, Minkunas DV, Herscovitch P, Yamada EM, Cohen RM.

Section on Clinical Brain Imaging, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Md.

....."CONCLUSIONS: Global or absolute measures of metabolism using positron emission tomography and fludeoxyglucose F18 did not statistically differentiate between normal adolescents with ADHD. Positron emission tomography scans can be performed and are well tolerated by normal teenagers and teenagers with ADHD. The feasibility of normal minors participating in research involving radiation was established." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.173.212.154 (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

The more Wikipedic approach would be to note that the PET scan study done in such and such a year appeared to indicate, etc., etc., but also note that Zametkin, one of the researchers on that study, later reported himself unable to reproduce the results of the study. Simply removing mention of it altogether as if it had never existed, when obviously it did exist and had a significant effect, is not the best solution. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

flogging the Zametkin dead cat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder/archive3#zametkin_issue There are several entries there dealing with this issue. --scuro 02:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder treatments

I forked this article out of the Treatments section because it was becoming rather listy and unwieldy. If you have any comments or suggestions please reply. Sifaka ^talk 00:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC) I also reduced the length of the treatment section and noted the new main article. If you think I took something important out or over emphasized something please let me know. Sifaka ^talk 00:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to get info on ADD but this seems to be about ADHD only

I thought there was a slight difference between the two, and that with ADHD hyperactivity was a symptom, but that it didn't necessarily factor in to ADD. I may be wrong here. Is there actually a difference between the two, and if so, why is this article about ADHD instead of ADD?--Jcvamp 20:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll understand it better if you read an older version of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder&oldid=75974226 Edward Bower 20:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Significant difference between the two especially if hyperactivity was never really present. Hyperactivity is often associated with ODD. All subtypes fall under the ADHD umbrella. Also take a look at sluggish cognitive tempo which is very different from classic hyperactive ADHD. --scuro 05:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Inventor of ADHD Speaks Out

This would seem to call into question the diagnosis and the book used to diagnose.

A result in a poll of psychiatrists of the ten WORST psychiatric research documents:

DSM-IV - Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: (4th ed). Containing every psychiatric diagnosis, it is criticised for reducing psychiatry to a checklist. "If you are not in DSM-IV, you are not ill. It has become a monster, out of control."

(Excerpt from THE INDEPENDENT (London) March 19, 2001, Monday; Pg. 5 By Jeremy Laurance Health Editor)

Bizfixer 21:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Bizfixer, in my opinion, this is the type of thing that belongs in your blog, why have you posted this on a talk page?Edward Bower 02:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

trying to find a link that used to be there...

Pardon me if I'm intruding or if you think I'm wildly off-topic, or if I'm supposed to post this somewhere else. I remember reading this article some months ago, and seeing at the bottom an interesting section referencing "fictional characters with ADD", and a list of such characters with links to information about them. I wanted to refer someone I know to look at that, only now I can't find it.

Does anyone remember having seen this? Any idea how I could find it again?
Many thanks. --69.3.123.87 15:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... if you know how many months ago yo can entry the history of the article and look at one of the versions of those days to see if you find it... every version of the article is saved so you can always find it... but if you don't know when it was it can take you quite a while. Anyway, have you tried google?. --Garrondo 16:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a link that could have been used as a source for the History section. http://www.doctorsreview.com/archives/2007/no_06/jun07-history_medicine.html

Having reviewed Shakespeare's play Henry VIII from multiple sources, I found no mention of a "malady of attention" in the text. Maybe I overlooked something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.50.109 (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

^That was me. Sorry I wasn't logged in. Has anyone else looked into this? Assuming Shakespeare did write something of this nature, is it not feasible that he was indeed referring to Henry VIII being married numerous times? Which, in my opinion, could indicate a "malady of attention" but not in the context of this article. As for Heinrich Hoffman's literary works, they can be found Here. It has them in German and Mark Twain's English translation. AzmarovBohenski 20:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The link is also mentioned here. http://www.continuingedcourses.net/active/courses/course003.php--scuro 22:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it mentioned in numerous sources except for the one that matters, Henry VIII. I've read through the play five times now and have not actually seen it mentioned in the play. It isn't really important, I'm not an English major.AzmarovBohenski 03:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

multiple additions to talk and NPOV tag added by Jkhamlin

Jkhamlin, if you believe there is bias please succinctly state why the tag was put on with citations (WP:V) to back your contention. Please don't refer to what's being taught in university or make other claims unless you can specifically cite this through a reliable source such as the NYT. If these can't be provided the NPOV tag should go off.--scuro 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The tag has again been removed until sufficient evidence for its presence can be established by either the user mentioned above, or someone else with a strong, supported position. DashaKat 20:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I and others here have repeatedly referred to the scientific literature and publications by expert organizations that clearly show that the neutrality of the neurology zealots is in question. The neurology zealots, I guess including yourself, have been quick to leap over and discount this mountain of evidence in favor of their little molehill. Please reread everything on the talk page. All references have already been made repeatedly. The only support anyone can muster for the neurology argument is the opinion piece of the fringe group of "scientists" that is referenced on the neurology statement on the article page, therefore, the NPOV tag is not only appropriate, but obligatory. This reference is not a neutral reference, it is an advocacy piece. The burden of proof is on the neurology zealots, since their position is contrary to the position held by the scientific world and supported by research. DashaKat, you are a new user. Please don't do anything so rash as to violate policies here such as reverting edits without good faith and legitimate reason.--Jkhamlin 20:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not in the least-wise a new user. I've been editing here for several years, and have been Editor Zero on several articles in Psych. And, I have not violated policy, but, rather, asked that anything so rash as placing an NPOV tag at the top of a page be supported with evidence on the discussion page of the article specific to the placing of that tag, not buried in the depths of some other conversation or an archive.

Further, as to violating policy, your alleged education does not preclude the necessity on your part of advancing civility to your fellow editors. That said, regards your comments to other, more respected, editors on this page, if you'd care to go toe-to-toe in a debate I suspect you will find yourself ill-equipped.

Finally, as an, also alleged, practitioner of martial arts, you might want to work on the Humility pillar a bit. Put your grand-standing soapboxing nonesense away and cooperate with maybe some lesser and maybe some greater minds than your own, rathe rthan beoing so aggregeously positional. It'll do your heart good. Cheers! DashaKat 20:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Be civil(WP:CIV) and no soapboxing(WP:NOT#SOAP). The tag was added by you. The burden of proof lies with you. --scuro 21:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just dropped in and read thru the neurological debate. Clearly someone has an axe to grind. Can ADHD be effectively treated by therapy? Generally, no. Therapy can teach coping mechanisms, but the underlying problems remain. On the other hand, medication addresses the underlying chemical imbalance. It isn't a cure, but it is an effective treatment. If it is a brain chemistry problem, then it is a NEUROLOGICAL problem. 74s181 04:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have put an entry above in the section "Neurological in nature?" linking several articles from a leading medical researcher and a leading research psychologist supporting a neurologic basis for mood disorders and AD/HD. A simple PubMed search would provide hundreds, if not thousands, of others. I'd say the burden of proof lies with user:Jkhamlin to provide proof beyond semantic arguments over what the DSM and WHO say or don't.

Also, I am unclear as to why people are attempting to engage in a semantic argument by reference to the NIH definition to begin with. Several of the researchers you have deemed "fringe scientists" have worked on NIH research. Furthermore, a quick glance through the NIMH [webpage] turns up the following:

Yet it was not until 1902 that Sir George F. Still published a series of lectures to the Royal College of Physicians in England in which he described a group of impulsive children with significant behavioral problems, caused by a genetic dysfunction and not by poor child rearing—children who today would be easily recognized as having ADHD. Since then, several thousand scientific papers on the disorder have been published, providing information on its nature, course, causes, impairments, and treatments.

and

Professionals Who Make the Diagnosis.

If ADHD is suspected, to whom can the family turn? What kinds of specialists do they need?

Ideally, the diagnosis should be made by a professional in your area with training in ADHD or in the diagnosis of mental disorders. Child psychiatrists and psychologists, developmental/behavioral pediatricians, or behavioral neurologists are those most often trained in differential diagnosis. (emphasis mine)

This from the NIMH [pamphlet] on AD/HD, which has several footnotes like these:

8The ADHD Molecular Genetics Network. Report from the third international meeting of the attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder molecular genetics network. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 2002, 114:272-277.

9Castellanos FX, Lee PP, Sharp W, Jeffries NO, Greenstein DK, Clasen LS, Blumenthal JD, James RS, Ebens CI, Walter JM, Zijdenbos A, Evans AC, Giedd JN, Rapoport JL. Developmental trajectories of brain volume abnormalities in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2002, 288:14:1740-1748.

Furthermore, there is a link to this article:

[Brain Changes Mirror Symptoms in ADHD]

And, at another point, to go slightly off topic since you have called into question the neurobiologic basis of all psychiatric diagnoses, this about bipolarity:

[Genetic Roots of Bipolar Disorder Revealed by First Genome-Wide Study of Illness: Targeting enzyme produced by a specific gene may lead to better medications]

So, if the NIMH is talking about AD/HD and other psychiatric ailments in terms of neurology and the physical structure of the brain, what does it matter what their "definitions" are? Since psychiatric disorders are defined and treated according to symptoms, shouldn't we agree that what you are trying to quote is instead a discription? Where is your mountain of scientific literature then? Since I'm intimately concerned with this (and I suspect my psychiatrist may be as well), I'm listening. Honestly.--Mrdarcey 04:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Continued Ed Courses as reference

I'm going to revert the edits by DashaKat that removed the references to the ContinuingEdCourses, stating that they were not legitimate. I don't know anything about any other CED's, but the one that this article refered to was written by Russell A. Barkley, Ph.D., who is Research Professor of Psychiatry at the SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, and Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. He's is a recognized expert on ADHD, and the text itself (the one that Barkley wrote) is very well referenced. So I can't see why this would not be a legitimate reference. DashaKat, if you don't agree with me, please explain! Lova Falk 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The academic definition of a reference is something that you can go and read. While it is true that some individuals may have access to the esteemed Dr. Barkley's classes, not every one does. That makes the references not workable. Referencing them as not legitimate may have been too strong a turn of phrase, but my point was, if Dr. Barkley has published something, great, reference that. Citing course curriculum as supporting evidence just doesn't fly by Wiki standards, or any academci standards that I know of, as it is transient information. DashaKat 21:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm re-reverting. The reference provided is indeed "something that you can go and read," and I've seen no indication that the information is going to be taken down anytime soon. Until such time as the page is inaccessable, the reference is perfectly acceptable by Wikipedia standards: it is a well written article by an expert in the field which specifically mentions the point or topic it is intended to back up. The fact that it happens to be part of a course curriculum is irrelevant. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states that articles be sourced "...to ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor." The content of this article can be checked, but not via these sources, unless you are a student of the professor, or have access to the class notes. The original link brought you to a course outline, not an article. That precludes "any reader". Find another source. DashaKat 21:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to read the link in full. There is a large, large section underneath the general course outline detailing some of the points this author is making about ADHD, including the one the citation is there to back up. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a course outline, it's the whole course. I'm undoing the undoing. --scuro 22:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak. DashaKat 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Research section? CPTs?

Considering that ADHD is one of the most researched areas in neuropsychology, I was surprised that there was no Current Research section in this article.

I was also surprised not to see any mention of Continuous Performance Tests. It has been common practice for the last decade (or two) for psychologists to use CPTs for ADHD screening and for psychiatrists and doctors to use CPTs to titrate medications and monitor development.

The article seems to get a lot of churn, so I'm hesitant to add these things myself. --IanOsgood 16:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It gets churn because of the agenda-driven contributions of a few editors. The additions you suggest would be welcome by most here. DashaKat 19:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You're funny DK. The article gets little churn...we just have POV pushers who try to insert bogus material or delete supported material. The CPT has little validity as a diagnositic tool and is not used much in current practice. I'd prefer not to see a current research section. Do other articles have one that I could look at? I'd fear that we would get every tidbit of research that POV pushers can dig up, without the relevance or analysis needed to spring stuff like that on the general public.--scuro 20:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Current research data should be -- can be -- incorporated into the article in the relevant section. CPT is becoming a less used methodology because of it's lack of validity as a DX tool. JohnsonRon 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A chronic condition

Hi JohnsonRon! I reverted your change into a "chronic" condition, back into "non-curable". There is no cure for ADHD, but it can be outgrown - so it's not always chronic. Lova Falk 17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

ADHD can't be outgrown. It's possible to learn to cope with ADHD, but it's still there. -- Ned Scott 18:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How about a chronic and incurable condition? It is a developmental condition so the symptoms can change over time. eg Hyperactivity does disappear for a good number of you hyperactive kids but the impulsiveness remains.--scuro 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Incurable sounds a bit too medical, though. How about chronic and on-going?...although, I'd be in favor of chronic and incurable. MHO DashaKat 22:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Incurable suggests things like cancer, MS and liver failure which are progressive and don't remit. ADHD OTOH can be managed successfully so symptoms remit. As it lasts years its chronic. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is currently thought that around 30% of children with AD/HD will outgrow their symptoms. For the other 70% who become adult sufferers of the disorder, the symptoms are very chronic. Perhaps someone can make use of that for the entry.--Mrdarcey 01:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Two sentences after "chronic" it says: It is believed that around 60% of children diagnosed with ADHD retain the disorder as adults. How can a condition be chronic if 40% of the children don't retain the disorder as adults?Lova Falk 15:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that and the lock are why I didn't edit. I'm merely suggesting a compromise wording whereby it can be acknowledged that the condition is not chronic for some children, but is chronic for those who suffer continuing symptoms as adults. I agree the statement should not be chronic for the entirity of diagnoses.

Incidentally, CHADD's National Resource Center on AD/HD links an article by an Ed.D. saying the number of children who retain the disorder into young adulthood as 70-80%. There are a raft of statisitcal references, including two Barkley studies.

[Myths and Misconceptions About AD/HD: Science over Cynicism]

The section ends stating that, "Thus, AD/HD is a lifelong disorder that requires a developmental framework for appropriate diagnosis and treatment". The whole article is actually quite good.--Mrdarcey 18:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

NIMH and International Consensus Statement

In testimony before Congress in 2002, then Acting Direction of the NIMH, Dr. Richard Nakamura referenced and inserted the full International Consensus Statement into the Congressional Registry as evidentury proof of AD/HD. He also refers to the disorder as neurobiological and makes reference to the genetic correlations. For my money, that means neurologic in origin.

Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorders: Are Children Being Overmedicated?

First, let me tell you that I am not a clinician, nor am I a psychiatrist. I am trained in neuroscience—I am a Ph.D. scientist who studies the brain. But I am very well aware of the issue that has brought us here today.

...

ADHD...refers to a family of related chronic neurobiological disorders that interfere with an individual’s capacity to regulate activity level, inhibit behavior, and attend to tasks in developmentally appropriate ways. The exact etiology of ADHD is unknown, although neurotransmitter deficits, genetics, and perinatal complications have been implicated. ADHD tends to run in families. Between 10 and 35 percent of children with ADHD have a first-degree relative with past or present ADHD. Approximately one-half of parents who had ADHD have a child with the disorder.

...

A large consortium of international scientists, deeply concerned about the portrayal of ADHD as a "myth, fraud or a benign condition," signed a letter in which they expressed concern over the inaccurate notion that somehow ADHD is not real. Here is how they put it. (I will be happy to insert the entire statement in the Record)

...

NIMH is now supporting interdisciplinary research networks on ADHD, to translate what is already known in the basic sciences (particularly cognitive neuroscience, molecular genetics and biology) into clinical preventive, interventive and treatment strategies.

--Mrdarcey 16:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To continue beating a very dead horse, NINDS refers to AD/HD as a both neurobiological and a developmental disorder here:

[NINDS Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder Information Page]

Furthermore, NINDS refers to developmental disorders as form of neurological disorder here:

[Brain Basics: Know Your Brain]

You can complete the syllogism yourself, I'm sure.--Mrdarcey 18:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

AD/HD and metabolism

I have been working on a project for Health, and was wondering on the connections between AD/HD and metabolism, if there are any. I have done some very broad internet searches that have all come up blank. however i see that there were questions of this type somewhere in the past of this article. Xiaden 02:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation Issues

"Only five percent of those with ADHD will get a college degree compared to twenty seven percent of the general population. (US Census, 2003)"

Was there a US census in 2003? William conway bcc 16:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also "The prevalence among children and adults is estimated to be in the range of 4% to 8%.[45][46][47]" But "Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is generally considered to be a developmental disorder, largely neurological in nature, affecting between three and five percent of the population.[1][2][3]" There really shouldn't be conflicts of information within the same article

Well, there certainly was a publication from the Census Bureau using Census data regarding AD/HD in 2003.--Mrdarcey 19:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you give us a more specific citation? --*Kat* 01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is badly written and misleading. I assumed that the note referred to this [1], which was indeed published in 2003/4. However it is only general statistical data for educational attainment in the population with regards to ethnicity and gender. Mea culpa. The 5% degree cite appears to be this, The adolescent outcome of hyperactive children diagnosed by research criteria: I. An 8-year prospective follow-up study, the first of a three part 1990 study by Barkley, et al. I think a more accurate complaint to the sentence is the age of that study compared to that of the census data.--Mrdarcey 00:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

ADD

I was very disappointed to find that this article does not address ADD at all or even mention it nor, it seems, is there much discussion about the medications prescribed for adults with ADHD and ADD. My psychiatrist told me that stimulants are ->NOT<- the drug of choice for adults. I have ADD which is the form that occurs most often in women and girls. I took Cyclert for many years until it was taken off the market; now I take Strattera. I also couldn't find any information on the number of men/boys with the disease versus the numbers of women/girls who have it.

Could someone please add this information?

Thank you.

It doesn't mention ADD because technically there is no such thing. What you are talking about is ADHD predominantly inattentive type, which is mentioned quite clearly in the article. Also, there are currently only two medications with FDA approval for treatment of adult AD/HD. Adderall XR, the most commonly prescribed, is definitely a psychostimulant. Strattera, though technically a norepinephrine reuptake inhibator, can have some very stimulating effects. Just a wild guess, but Ritalin/Concerta, the psychostimulant of choice for hyperactivity in kids, is not prescribed as much in adults because it would be an off-label use.--Mrdarcey 19:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As is his wont, Mrdarcey is indeed wild guessing again. The above statements re: Adderall XR, Strattera, and Ritalin/Concerta are patently incorrect.

The reason stimulants are not, as a general rule, not prescribed for adults is because the paradoxical effect that makes them work for kids in the first place ceases to be present post-puberty. --DashaKat 19:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The (non-signed) user brings up a good point though: the term ADD is not mentioned prominently on the page. It should be made clear (like in the opening paragraph) that while the term ADD is still used in popular culture, it is an outdated medical term and refers to what is now called the predominantly inattentive type. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 19:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. --DashaKat 00:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but point out that DashaKat seems to be speculating as much as Mrdarcey. I say this from my own experience, being a 24 year old taking Adderall (the non-RX one). I've never heard anything from my doctors about the medication needing to be switched due to puberty, and I've never had a problem with the medication in the 10+ years since puberty hit myself. -- Ned Scott 03:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ned Scott about the dual speculation. There are several stimulants on the market and approved by the FDA, and stimulants work well for adults also. --scuro 15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't tend to get into the Talk page skirmishes, but as a clinician who has actually been practicing longer than NedScott has been on the planet, I'd say my "speculation" has a fair amount of grounding in both the field and the literature. Re-read the original post..."drug of choice". My post should more properly have read, "...generally ceases to present post-puberty". Excuse the sweeping generalization. --DashaKat 18:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I don't want to get into any skirmish, either, but what about that is incorrect, other than what I stated was a guess? The FDA states here that only Adderall XR, a stimulant, and Strattera, a non-stimulant, have FDA approval for adult treatment of AD/HD. Has that changed in the past two years? The article also talks about the similar side effect profile of Strattera to stimulants, like increased heart rate, insomnia and lack of appetite/weight loss. Furthermore CHADD states here that "Psychostimulants continue to be first line medications for the treatment of AD/HD in adults as well as children and adolescents." It gives this cite: American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (2002). Practice parameter for the use of stimulant medications in the treatment of children, adolescents, and adults. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(Suppl. 2), 26-49. The article also refers to Cylert as a psychostimulant and talks about the possibility of an expanded role for Strattera in the AD/HD pharmacoepia. The CHADD article is 5 years old, and things might well have changed since then, but I'm not sure how that invalidates what I said.

I've a great deal of respect for what you've written and contributed here. Your reasoning above sounds good to me, and if you can show me where I'm wrong I'll more than happily retract any incorrect statement. But my wont for wildly guessing? At least I'm trying to source my statements.--Mrdarcey 00:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There is such a thing as adult ADHD and the diagnosis of that disorder happens every day. For many ADHD doesn't disappear it merely changes form. Often. with time, the hyperactivity becomes far less apparent for those who are hyperactive. I'd further speculate that the most impairing time for ADHD is in childhood but that doesn't mean that the impairment goes away when one turns 18. Furthermore, adult ADHD is also treated with more then two drugs. http://www.ncpamd.com/NewADD_Meds.htm That FDA article doesn't spell out that only two drugs are used for adults. It's a muddled article anyways. Think about it, what would happen to a child taking Ritalin when they turn 18? Do they simply say take Adderall or nothing? I don't think so. --scuro 03:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being clear. The FDA has officially approved two drugs specifically for use in adult ADHD: Strattera and Adderall XR. That does not mean doctors can, do or should not prescribe others off label, for whatever reason, such as Ritalin/Concerta, Adderall IR, Wellbutrin, Provigil, et al. I use Wellbutrin myself for my ADHD symptoms as psychostimulants are too activating. Check out the first sentence of CrazyMeds' entry for stimulants.--Mrdarcey 17:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a possibility that if true, I was not aware of. Thanks for sharing.--scuro 04:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Happens for a whole raft of drugs, particularly in the MI pharmacoepia. Anti-depressants are prescribed for anxiety disorders, anticonvulsants as mood stabilisers, though many have dual approval. Wellbutrin is officially an anti-depressant, but is used off label for both AD/HD and bipolarity. Lamictal is officially approved for BPI, but is often used for BPII. And of course one can always rebrand, a la Zyban. Check out the CHADD article again. It talks about none of the stimulants having approval for adult AD/HD, and all being used off label. That was in 2002. Adderall XR gained official approval in 2004. It is possible something else has been officially approved since then, and I am unaware of it.--Mrdarcey 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I propose that we merge ADHD predominantly inattentive to this article. Not officially recognized in the DSM-IV, only has two references, and is really just one paragraph with a symptom list. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - It is officially recognized by the DSM-IV and the WHO, page has more then enough information to justify its own page. And the ADHD page is already long enough, there should be a short paragraph about ADHD predominantly inattentive with a link to the page like there is for Treatment and Controversy.Chris H 16:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose with suggestion It is a recognized diagnosis. There can be some mention on this page with a link to that article. JohnsonRon 19:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose --DashaKat 19:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment My apologies, the article said otherwise regarding it being recognized by the DSM-IV. Regardless of that, from an organizational standpoint it seems odd to have that information on a second page. Then again, it probably would make more sense to over look the entire ADHD article series (since that is indeed what we have now) and see how we've structured it. -- Ned Scott 02:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not. In response to the discussion in "ADD", I revised the article to include the information and the redirect in the first paragraph 2 days ago. Blessings. --DashaKat 12:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• agree ADHD-PI should clearly be described in the main article. This group is distinctive and not what most people associate with ADHD. Why shunt this info to a secondary page? If we have many paragraphs in a ADHD-PI sub-section then you could make the case to create a secondary article. That is not the case currently and since ADHD-PI article is so short they should be merged.--scuro 15:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Only if all the sub-categories of ADHD are oncluded in said subsection. --DashaKat 17:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I could go along with that JohnsonRon 19:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not...that sounds like a good idea. Wouldn't a reader also want to know the difference between a combo and plain hyperactive also?--scuro 02:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Theory - ADHD is a symptom of evolution towards higher IQ

Since ADHD is highly correlated with high IQ, is it not possible that the disorder is caused by high IQ? If the energy (dopamine) consuming part of the brain were to grow to a greater capacity, and thereby require more energy to fully function than that of normal brains, would it not have symptoms such as ADHD due to its lack of a similarly enhanced energy supply or fuel system?

I have ADHD and an IQ of about 180. I often feel as if my mind can only operate fully in bursts of energy, followed by long periods of sputtering dysphoria and reduced function. It is as if my brain is a high-horsepower 8 cylinder engine that has been fitted with a fuel pump that is designed for a small 4 cylinder car. If I 'save up' mental energy, I can then use it in a burst on an important task. I cannot control this process consciously, but it seems to happen over and over.

In this way, I have come to imagine that the symptoms of ADHD are simply an advanced power-saving algorithm that my brain uses to enable it to focus on what it thinks is important. It also causes all the subsequent problems with all the other mental tasks that it thinks are unimportant.

This would also explain why adding dopamine to an ADHD brain usually fixes the problem.

Therefore, I believe that ADHD is possibly an indication of the next evolutionary stage in human brain computational capacity. This advancement has occurred without a simultaneous advancement in the supporting/fueling systems within the brain that permit this higher capacity to be fully used. The disorder is possibly an indication of a mutation in process that has created an unbalanced state within the brains of these mutants, but is actually an evolutionary advancement.

208.127.79.59 10:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting theory, and, although it is true that Da Vinci was likely THE poster child for ADD/ADHD, it is as unlikely as that one could find anything in the literature substantiating this theory.

Further, an investigation of alternative eduction schools would probably lend substantial balance, if not a demonstrable refutation, to the notion that being intelligent "causes" ADHD The cognitively challenged are just as likely to be ADHD. --DashaKat 12:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[r.e.: Original post: Anecdotal, and somewhat interesting that you feel the need to tell us your IQ. Surely either your logic or knowledge are somewhat lacking here. ADHD does not allow you to perform better in our current environment, in fact studies show that it inhibits your levels of success in many areas of life (I'm not being "nasty" - I have ADHD too.) Thus there is no evolutionary advantage in promotion of this variant genetic material, as no pressure is operating to allow it to prove beneficial. The mere fact you cannot control your mental "energy" suggests that if anything you will be inherently limited at forward planning, an ability which does constitute an evolutionary advantage in almost every conceivable human environment either now or in the past. If anything surely it is a mutation that is likely to decline? (Though there are other factors that could be brought in to play.)]

ADD on the disambiguation page should redirect to ADHD predominantly inattentive

Most people don't know that ADD is a form of ADHD, so they might get confused when they get redirected to a page that is generally about ADHD. I think "ADD" on the disambiguation page should redirect to the ADHD predominantly inattentive article, so that people realize more quickly that it is in fact a specific form of ADHD. Who agrees? --82.31.161.14 18:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Causes of of ADHD and nutrition

While recent studies have shown that nutrition plays a role in the reduction of some ADHD symptoms and studies show that genetics does not account for the entire ADHD population, no reliable source states that the fast majority of ADHD is caused by nutritional factors. In fact several good secondary sources state that poor nutrition does not cause ADHD. The nutrition paragraph in this subsection has become too large and too reliant on single studies and not secondary sources. Furthermore, while it is interesting that higher or lower levels of certain nutrients effect symptomology no author of these studies draws the conclusion that nutrition is the cause of ADHD. Much of what is written here should be moved to the ADHD treatment article where the information is more relevant.--scuro 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Repeating the entire DSM criteria is a copyvio; it needs to be summarized and paraphrased. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Is it possible?

I've worked with a disproportionate number of children dianosed with ADD and ADHD. I've read and re-read all of the commentary from researchers, scientists, psychologists, teachers and parents. I've seen no research for those circumstances when the brain/central nervous system 'morphs' from a biological miracle into the different appearances of brain activity and structure that represent ADD. While I guess that there are biologically-suspect causes (this is not a new disorder), I keep seeing small references to "television" and the exposure or restriction of time spent with this type of 'child care provider', as either a potential cause or at least a partial preventative, respectively (depending on the article). I've not seen the implicit results of any research into the impact of early electronic game viewing on young, 'untrained' and still-forming neural connectors and the central nervous system mechanism. I'm curious to know how early-childhood, high speed, high color, intense visual exposure impacts brains that have not yet had the methodical 'training' required to recognize and work with basic shapes, colors and simple problem-solving and how this affects a developing brain. These brains (kids)jump directly into the neurological challenge of an intense, high speed, highly stimulating activity, often at significant durations and frequencies as a part of their early development. How does this stimuli affect the structural and functional area of the brain in early development? I have read that there is some affect to developed brains. I've also read that there are several additional stages of structural development of the brain, after early childhood--how is this subsequent nevous system development affected by ongoing exposure to electonic "high energy" visual stimulation? When may I read the results of this research?65.194.243.232 17:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why is it such an important topic to decide if adhd is a mental/ neurological disorder? I have been diagnosed and couldn't care less about it. Thanks. 134.106.199.50 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.106.199.50 (talk) 17:24, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, conributors here think it is important. I am not sure what your exact question is. In some countires, the importance has to do with the ability to get some kind of insurance coverage for treatment. It also can be important that it has official recognition that it be taken seriously in legal proceedings. People who have a diagnosis that is officially recognized seem to be treated better by the community generally and are likely to have more faith and hope in treatments.DCDuring 10:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCDuring (talk • contribs)

Many people growing up with undiagnosed ADD are accustomed to having moralistic explainations acribed to their behavior-- that is "you're lazy", "you refuse to behave", "you don't think about the consquences of your actions". The idea that there's a nuerology at work frees them from the feelings of guilt they've been trained to expirence, gives them a different way of looking at themselves and lets them make a change positive in themselves. Whether ADD is, in fact, nuerological or not, that's why there's a lot of strong feelings about it. Stevecudmore 16:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

TV and ADHD

--Ss06470 01:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Fascinating that there is an August question about TV and ADHD and an article by Australian researchers directed at this very question which appeared in Pediatrics which I added here last week and it has already been deleted. Does Childhood Television Viewing Lead to Attention Problems in Adolescence? Results From a Prospective Longitudinal Study PEDIATRICS Vol. 120 No. 3 September 2007, pp. 532-537 (doi:10.1542/peds.2007-0978)

Good work ADHD police. Your diligence is an inspiration. How you get away with it is an amazing story but then so are the mailings I get every week (about 4 or 5)advocating for the vast number of patients I am seeing who must be put on amphetamines or Ritalin to treat their biological condition. I get more ads for this cause then the coupons my wife receives from detergent manufacturers Layman are beginning to be suspicions of Childhood Bipolar Disorder which has seen a 40 fold increase in diagnosis over the last 10 years. Could it be that our "experts" are salesmen for drug companies. They certainly are paid a fortune to make their point. But then I've said all this before including my references to Marcia Angell's editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine Is Academic Medicine for Sale. There are literally billions of dollars involved for drug companies in keeping ADHD biological. When are the people who run Wikepedia going to wake up and guard sites such as this from those who police this site and keep disagreeing facts from reaching the eyes of readers. Who are you Scuro?

Nice frame-up job there Doc.

With regards to TV and ADHD, these studies are correlational studies which means while you can see a relationship between the two variables studied, it doesn't necessarily mean that the two variables are linked. For instance there is a very strong correlational link between the number of churches in a square mile and the number of bars in a square mile. Does this mean that god makes you drink? If you speak the language of science and reliable citations we can communicate on this page. Otherwise you're preaching or spewing propoganda, Wikipedia is not the place for this. Start a blog or go to anyone of the prodigious antipsychiatry/scientology websites and I'm sure your contributions will be appreciated there.--scuro 02:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How convenient it is to place all critics together with scientologists

Scuro. I tried last time to reason with the likes of your kind 6 months ago and it was a complete waste of my time, so this will be it. I consider Scientology nonsense and regularly prescribe meds when they are warranted. I also use stimulants for ADHD as a practical measure. They do work for reasons I try to elaborate in my article.ADHD and Other Sins of Our Children Many other medications have profoundly influenced psychiatric practice and been helpful. I defended Prozac and Lilly against wild accusation in the British Medical Journal [2] Moreover, I have little doubt that the recent increase in adolescent suicides is related to a decreased use of antidepressants as a result of the media hysteria .

However, there is no question that drug companies promote their drugs in unethical ways and unfortunately many "experts" are essentially hired guns for their point of view. I say this with profound regret and don't doubt that many of them consider themselves innocent and unprejudiced by the huge amounts of money paid to them. I keep mentioning Marcia Angell former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine who wrote her editorial "Is Academic Medicine for Sale" and then went on to write a book about this subject The Truth about the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do about It The editor of the Lancet was even more scathing in comments he made in the New York Review of Books.Horton, R. (2004) The Dawn of McScience. New York Review of Book 51, Vol4..Mental Health Another editor of the NEJM wrote an article in the JAMA with a similar assessment. The fact is 18 billion dollars have been spent on promoting drugs. It is completely out of hand. I invite you to read my article on ADHD before you so easily dismiss me. There are certainly positions that I take that may turn out to be wrong, but they are honest speculations. The consistent efforts here to exclude nonbiological points of view is not honest and should be labelled as such. I don't know if you work for a drug company or are one of the many people who have been convinced that their own problems are "not their fault" because they were born with ADHD, or whatever your motivation, but I once again invite you to reveal who you are. This site with its annonymous posting and claims to scholarly objectivity is absurd.

One last quote from my article

"It Was Like A Whitewash"'

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

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

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

My assumption for the reason Pelham was pressured to remove the paragraqh emphasizing the importance of combined treatments (medication and behavioral) is that this would expose the limitations of pediatricians, who would be required to meet this standard of care. By far, the biggest presecribers of Concerta are pediatricians. Use would go radically down if the pediatricians could not believe that they were giving appropriate care based on reasoning that they were simply fixing the chemical imbalance. --Ss06470 13:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Simon Sobo MD

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss06470 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 

I have no financial interest in any ADHD medication or drug company. Really I don't have to post that information but have done so because you appear new. Nor do I have to reveal who I am. You don't seem to have a firm grasp on the conventions of Wikipedia. On Wikipedia credible citable information is the gold standard, not reputation or articles published etc. Everything I post is based on citable information.

Dr. what you post is very much off topic on the ADHD talk page. Read the blurb at the top of the talk page for further information. Anything posted on this page should be for the betterment of the ADHD article. This is not the place to question someones credentials. I believe the talk page you should be posting on is "controversies of ADHD" or "disease mongering" talk pages. The information you posted here is off topic and consequently has the appearance of spam or propaganda.--scuro 15:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Genetics and ADHD

Was going through older posts and a question went unanswered from Scuro about challenges to the genetic basis of ADHD. Here are two:

THE MISSING GENE Psychiatry, Heredity, and the Fruitless Search for Genes Jay Joseph, Psy.D. Algora Publishing, January, 2006

Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., from Harvard Medical School had this to say "no claim of a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation". This is from Glenmullin, Joseph (2000). Prozac Backlash. New York: Simon & Schuster, 192-198.

I perfectly understand there are conventions and rules here including that this page is not a soapbox, but it would not be necessary to debate these issues here if the page were not a police state. I invite you and other readers to compare the statement under the PET scan on the ADHD controversy page with the one on the ADHD page. Why has that statement been removed here over and over? That very dramatic picture has been used over and over "proving" ADHD is really biological when in fact it proves absolutely nothing. It is what one would expect if the person with ADHD wasn't attending to the assigned task. It is also amazing that

Looking over your arguments Scuro, you seem to have used that scientology, critics are a fringe nut group, once too often. How about attending to science and logic rather, than we all must be crazy. One thing I will acknowledge. The majority of doctors, organizations and "experts" agree that ADHD is biological. The question is whether they are right, why they keep calling themselves "experts" about subjects that we don't have answers for. Take a look at the Frontline interview of the NIMH leading researcher, Dr. Castellanos on ADHD about how much we actually know with scientific validity frontline interview(and he is a true believer in the biological basis of ADHD) The more general question is about the nature of group-think which is not limited to psychiatrists. When I was in training no one dared question Freud. Now almost all conditions are considered biological. I believe part of that is the billions of dollars being spent on keeping people thinking that way. I meant what I said about the number of mailings, seminars, CD, internet e mails, ads in journals. It is absolutely amazing. It would be one thing if there had been some major scientific discovery about ADHD in the last few years, but that is not the case!!! It is simply the amount of money to be made out there. The reason so many editors of reputable journals are writing about this is that they are very upset about it. They are not scientology nuts. At some point even you Scuro have to realize that your repeated generalizations about critics is off the wall. Every once in a while I will check in here to see if you are still using that same perspective. If you are and are continuing to remove contrary posts I will pose the question again. Exactly who are you and why are you doing this?

While Glenmullen worked at Harvard he isn't exactly without bias and would be considered an antipsychiatry figure. He was the one who publicly defended Tom Cruise on TV and who Breggin accused of stealing his antipsychiatry Prozac views. His viewpoints do seem to make it on a lot of antipsychiatry and scientology webpages. Beyond the internet he doesn't loom large. Thats not to say that his ideas couldn't have merit but rather he should be considered as a minority or fringe source. What he states is true though. No claim for a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time. That is because it is widely believed that several genes are involved with all of the mental disorders. If you want to call not allowing bogus information to be posted on the article, a "police state", go ahead. There are many valid criticisms of ADHD some of which are most likely not on the article. If you do want to bash the disorder I'd suggest you find better sources for your information.---scuro 12:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also listed on Antipsychiaty links but that is a silly characterizations. We are clearly critics not antipsychiatrists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss06470 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But are the criticisms credible and of the majority or even minority viewpoint? If not we have fringe criticisms and they belong in their own separate articles. Fringe viewpoints really have no reason to be on an article except for possibly a brief blurb with a link to a belief based article such as "Ritalin causes brain damage".--scuro 15:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To scuro

I am also listed on Antipsychiaty links but that is a silly characterizations. We are clearly critics not antipsychiatrists. I am not trying to bash ADHD. I believe the description of it applies to many children, I just don't accept it is a biological illness that has inflicted millions and millions of children

You seem to rely an awful lot on ad hominem arguments I have used my search engine and see you are everywhere. I ask again who are you? What is your connection to Dr. Barkely? It is fine if you communicate but I would like to know whether you simply quote him a lot or regularly communicate. You may not be required by the rules here to reveal this, but in ordinary ideas about scholarship it is an absolute requirement so that your credentials can be considered, especially since you delight in attacking others by reference to character rather than the substance of arguments Also a word about Dr. Barkley. He recieves money from McNeil Pharmaceuticals (U.S.) and Janssen-Ortho (Canada) (speaker fees) Shire Pharmaceutical Co. (Consulting/speaker fees) Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly Co. (Speaker/Consulting fees) I don't doubt his claims that the amounts are not a substantial part of his income, but if that is so why doesn't he end these connections?--Ss06470 12:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Simon Sobo can you follow the conventions of WIkipeida?

Listen Dr. S. you are way off topic once again. Let me reiterate, your assumptions about me are wrong and I'm not going to post my real name or further personal information. What you are posting is irrelevant to this talk page or is of a personal nature. Continue with this and you will simply be ignored. --scuro 15:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

length, content and similarities between article and poo

i swear to god this article keeps getting shorter and shorter. is someone removing bits from each section or something? wasnt that treatment section way longer. this article used to be better, im sure i dont like it change it make it better its shit. fuck u all for making it crap. and it says 'comorbid conditions are ODD.' wtf? whos changing this article into a pile of cow faeces?— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Please refrain from using offensive language. eXtreme Circuitz 01:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is non-NPOV

I myself am ADHD (Though taking med) but since before I was even diagnosed up till now (At least seven years) I have been the smartest kid in my school -- not just grade, the entire school -- and if I was given the chance to take the 10^th grade math TAKS test now I would probably ace it, yet I am only in 7^th grade. Consequent of reading this article I am highly offended by the description of the prognosis of ADHD. This article does NOT conform to the NPOV policy and should be revised accordingly. eXtreme Circuitz 01:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't just make generalization based on anecdotes and complain of POV. If you have any verifiable, citable, changes to the contrary, feel free to edit the page then. Voice-of-All 05:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a personal comment for eXtreme Circuitz and for the many young people with ADHD who read this article. The "prognosis" mentioned must be in reference to the Treatment section of the article, which indeed does give some information about prognosis for untreated ADHD (and not a lot is known about how treatment changes this). I'm 63 years old, and, while I was only diagnosed with ADHD in recent years, I clearly had the inattentive form early on. I was also the smartest kid around, I was bumped up one and one-half grades (having been in a private school, transferring to public school), and they would have bumped me more if my father had allowed it. And this is my conclusion: ADHD means, for me, that I can do things that are impossible for "normies." But some things that others can do easily, I can't do, or at least I cannot do them reliably. ADHD has had a major impact on my life sometimes a negative one. Once I was diagnosed, I talked about it with my brother, who is eleven years older than I, and, to my surprise, found that he was one of the first teenagers in the U.S. to be treated with Ritalin, and his hyperactivity was extreme. A summary: we have both done some amazing things, and we have both been unable to *complete* some of these things. My suggestion to anyone with ADHD is to learn as much as possible about it: in a sense, you can be proud of what you *can* do, and your skills can benefit yourself and others, you are important to society. But you will also probably be unable to do certain things, and you will need to know what they are and not beat your head against the wall trying to be what you are not. As an example for me, I lost an important client because I was working on another job, was absorbed in it, and forgot about an appointment until the time had already come. When I called to say I'd be late, I was told not to bother. Obviously, someone who can't remember an appointment must be too flaky! I *wasn't* too flaky, I did my consulting work, on time, and did it well. But I did have trouble, sometimes, getting to appointments on time! Now, knowing that, I'll set alarms so that if I get absorbed in something, I won't forget. Simple. Many of the ways in which we can improve our social function can be as simple as that. I've also had to learn that, surprise, most other people don't think the way I think, and when I don't factor for that in how I communicate with them, I can "drive them crazy," because for starters, I'm a dialectical thinker, I think in opposites. Others will interpret this as oppositional, simply being stubborn, which is an error. As well, I will sometimes fill in the picture of what we are talking about with a kind of shotgun consideration of fragments of the topic, all over the map, so to speak. People who need to think on one track at a time can be thrown way off by this: why did I change the subject? Of course, I didn't change the subject, I was merely considering wider aspects. If I want to be understood, however, I must modify how I communicate. And, then, there are drugs, legal and otherwise. I'm using legal drugs, prescribed by a psychiatrist. One (possibly two) of my children are using illegal drugs, for the same purpose. The illegal drugs bring risks that don't come with the legal ones; in order to get the legal drugs, one will need a diagnosis, which involves, among other things, an admission that there is a problem. If one is in denial about the problem, one may avoid solutions. Drugs are only a small part of the solution, though. --Abd 18:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been two months now with no specific objections lodged. I'll remove the POV-section tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eubulides (talk • contribs) 04:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

New results from Multimodal Treatment study?

Someone made a change to the introduction based on a BBC report, giving what seem to be preliminary, non-published results from the Multimodal Treatment study. The change about the results after one year was reasonable, that information was indeed published. The subsequent edit to show the three-year results, showing no long-term benefit, is based solely on the BBC report. That report has been widely echoed in the media as a "proof" that long-term results of ADHD drug use are nil. But I was unable to find any details of the actual new study. It is premature to incorporate such results in the introduction, which should be solid. The anonymous editor was properly reverted by User:Scuro. As to the one-year results, they might indeed be put into the article, with proper reference to the study itself (if it isn't already there, I haven't checked), but that's too much detail for an introduction. When the newer study is published, assuming it is published, after peer-review and facing general criticism within the field, some mention in the introduction might become proper and even important. This is a link to the BBC report: [3] --Abd 18:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I note the BBC report describes this condition as a 'behavioural condition' not a neurological one, and cites cases of children with obvious family and personality issues rather than focusing on 'pure' ADHD. It's interesting that many of those who are promoting non-drug approaches just happen to be those who make money from psychological and/or behavioural treatments that have even less evidence to support them. Of course many people with psychological or behavioural issues will benefit from therapy, but therapy cannot treat the underlying neurological condition. The BBC report neglects to discuss adult ADHD nor does it distinguish between ADHD and ODD. The simple fact is that for many people taking ADHD medication greatly improves their symptoms, of course if it doesn't they shouldn't take it and it's a good idea for people to have trial medication breaks now and then to test this. The diagnosis and treatment of ADHD is far from perfect and it is not clear that all or indeed most of those diagnosed with ADHD actually have the condition. I have ADHD and if I miss my meds, I feel like I can't see or focus properly, forget masses of basic things, feel overwhelmed and out of control rapidly and have no impulse control, and many others feel the same. I don't get violent and have a very high IQ and intellectual ability, but often underperform because of my ADHD symptoms. I'm so angry that the preliminary results of this one study are being blown out of all proportion and so many relevant facts are being overlooked. Another case of hype and scaremongering over science I'm afraid. Someone needs to tidy up the recent changes to this article that this BBC show seems to have inspired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.206.195 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am the one who posted the original BBC story. Sorry about the unsigned post. I wasn't using my computer then. Here is my suggestion

BBC is a verifiable source. Hence it cannot be deleted. However, the information should be put in proper context.

it should be mentioned that the result is still premilary

it should be also mentioned that the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD is one of the most respected and authoritative study.

Vapour 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Note:I have seen some of the comments in online new media about this news. There are quite few negative comments from people who is on medication and who find the treatment helpful

Firstly, I should point out that medical study is about statistics, i.e. numerical assessment of both successes and failures.

Secondly, from what I read, the study seems to imply that behavioural therapy alone in long run work as well as the combined treatment of medication and behavioural therapy, implying that medication only provide temporary and short term fix.

Lastly, personal opinion, including mine, is irrelevant per verifiablity.

Vapour 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's about statistics, anecdotes prove little, except that they can point to directions for further research, and they affect how believable research might be. In any case, however, the study has not yet been published in a peer-review journal. The *news* is notable and could be in the article, properly attributed, but it's not yet *science*, i.e., the study results can't be reported yet as fact -- unless someone can find better sourcing. It's clearly, as well, about something controversial, and to treat the study *conclusions* as proven fact is premature. We haven't seen the study yet! What, exactly, were they studying, how significant were the results, what were possible confounding factors, etc. It's a bit dangerous to present fresh research in the article, even if it *is* published in a peer-reviewed journal. --Abd 20:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to judge fact or science being conclusive or not. That is done by media or academic journal which wikipedia is supposed to report as verifiable and neutral. Vapour (talk)

Text that was removed from introduction by User:NuclearWinner

When removing substantial chunks of text, it's a courtesy to move it to the Talk page. That way, it is easier to find to reincorporate into the article, if needed. I agree that the intro was too long, so I haven't reverted this change, but there are facts here, with sources, that should probably go back into the article. I don't necessarily have time to do it....

Studies show that there is a familial transmission of the disorder which does not occur through adoptive relationships. Twin studies indicate that the disorder is highly heritable and that genetics contribute about three quarters of the total ADHD population. While the majority of ADHD is believed to be genetic in nature, roughly 1/5 of all ADHD cases are thought to be acquired after conception due to brain injury caused by either toxins or physical trauma prenatally or postnatally. According to a majority of medical research in the United States, as well as other countries, ADHD is today generally regarded as a chronic disorder for which there are some effective treatments. Over 200 controlled studies have shown that stimulant medication is an effective way to treat ADHD.

--Abd 01:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right about mentioning big deletions on the talk page. There was no deletion - I actually did move all that material down into the "Causes" section, and left just a summary version up top. But I should have communicated that, and the lede still needs tightening. NuclearWinner 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it still does. (Somehow I overlooked the insertion of the material later.) And User:Scuro reversed the move. These changes should be discussed here. Note that the article has a tag indicating that the introduction needs tightening. This is part of it. I have reverted the change by User:Scuro. Quite possibly, some of this material could be integrated back into the introduction, but the whole introduction should be revamped, see WP:LEAD. --Abd 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The terms ADD and ADHD

And editor changed the term ADD in the article to ADHD. While this may be a correct move (I think it is), the editor apparently used a text editor to replace all "ADD" with "ADHD", thus changing the word "additionally" to "ADHDitionally," as an example, and also changing the occurrence of the term "ADD" in a reference, the title of a paper," similarly. Another, more experienced editor reverted it as a quick fix. The reversion should have been explained in the edit summary or here. "Don't bite the newcomers." --Abd 13:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Academics

"A marked decrease in academic skills such as reading, spelling, or math is common with children who have ADHD." - Honestly, this has been the reverse in my experiences with peers and children diagnosed as such. While I can't change it (since this would be considered original research), I would sincerely appreciate a citation proving this effect. In my experiences, people with ADHD (or ADD) have been highly intelligent people with unique abilities. They are highly creative, able to focus very closely and for long periods of time on interesting tasks ("hyperfocus"), and able to remain comfortable in vague and imprecise subject matters, relying on the very same intuition that they attained as a coping mechanism in the non-ADHD world. kevinthenerd (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the effects of ADHD in children and how it impacts their academic skills can very a lot. I myself struggled with reading and writing, but excelled at math. -- Ned Scott 09:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.continuingedcourses.net/active/courses/course003.php

It will be in there...black and white, supported by research. There skills, ON AVERAGE, do lag their peers. Roughly a half of ADHDers don't finish high school...although a good chunk of that is because of behaviour. --scuro (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy moved away from the main article.

... since I last looked at the site. That's a well-working lobby for you. -91.23.143.224 (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone screwed up the article

The reference section is ruined. And the introduction seems like it's attacking the idea before even introducing it. Someone clean up.99.225.178.225 (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

contentious new edits need to be discussed in talk before they are made

Recent edits have been challenged because they give undue weight to minority or fringe opinions. Please seek consensus first on this talk page before making edits which other editors disagree with.--scuro (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Especially when such edits disagree with what medical science considers fact. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The existence of 'ADHD' is challenged by qualified doctors and scientists, notably by Dr Fred Baughman, an experienced paediatric neurologist in his book 'The ADHD Fraud' . I have interviewed Dr Baughman about this at length, and think he makes a scientifically and medically coherent case which is ignored by this article in the bowdlerized form to which its self-appointed guiardians have repeatedly returned it. In science, those who wish to advance a theory must prove it through repeatable, peer-reviewed experiment. The supporters of the 'ADHD' theory have never, despite years of trying to do so, produced an objective test for its presence. Those who are diagnosed with it are likewise not diagnosed by an objective test but through a vague and subjective list of symptoms. It may well be true that powerful forces have an interest in promoting the idea that 'ADHD' exists, as do those parents who receive welfare benefits because their children have been 'diagnosed' with it, or the teachers whose formerly chaotic classes are now quiet because so many of their charges are now receiving powerful psychotropic medication whose long-term effects are as yet unknown. Whereas those who doubt it are not so powerful nor wealthy, and have no interest but a desire to search for the truth. I am being extremely fair, in my edits (which I propose to continue indefinitely until this article is fair) in leaving untouched the arguments of those who believe in ADHD, merely inserting language which makes clear that partisan assertions are not facts, and which also makes clear that the existence of this complaint is disputed. The size and extent of dissent against a popular or fashionable idea has no bearing upon its truth, or its right of expression. Scientific truth never has been, and cannot be, established by majority vote (not that I know of any ballot on this subject ever having been held) . If this were so almost no dissenting voice in science ( or any other field) could get a hearing on Wikipedia, and many theories now established as true would have been denied such a hearing at the time their discoverers were seeking to establish them . Their attempts to suppress the fact that this diagnosis has scientifically-and medically qualified critics, and remains unproven, and has no objective measure, are engaging in straightforward censorship and should desist. I have expressed some scepticism elsewhere about Wikipedia's unachievable fetish for a 'Neutral Point of View', but where there is deep division among scientists about the existence of a complaint then it is surely necessary for any article about that complaint to make that division clear from the start. Declaring those you disagree with to be a 'fringe' is simply ad hominem, and illegitimate in serious debate. Most established ideas have been thus dismissed at some stage. The scientific argument goes to the heart of the matter. Where is the objective test for a complaint which is generally treated by the prescription of highly objective, powerful chemicals which act directly upon the most sensitive and least-known organ of the human body, the brain? The contentiousness of 'ADHD' is the most important thing about it. Anyone researching it (especially, say , the parent of a child told by teachers or others that her child suffers from this alleged complaint) should be allowed to learn of this directly from Wikipedia. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We know you disagree, and we know that trying to explain it to you for the 100th time won't do any good. You've been told about our policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and others (such as Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer). If you can't work with us on this, and keep inserting the disputed edits, you will likely find your account blocked from editing. -- Ned Scott 21:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are "we"? Who appointed "we?" as guardians odf this entry? What right does this "we" have to exclude important truths from a Wikipedia entry, and to insist that partisan, contentious opinions are asserted ( and presented to the uninformed reader) as settled facts? You have a special nerve, advancing 'NPOV' as an argument in this matter . The article as edited by me takes a completely neutral point of view between those who believe in this and those who don't. I have deleted precisely nothing of the pro-ADHD argument, merely modified its assertions so as to make clear that they remain matters of opinion rather than fact, and balanced them with the opinions of those who oppose the theory. Attempts to classify the opinion you dislike as 'fringe' are pure ad hominem, prejudicial, without value and illegitimate in serious argument. How do you know who will eventually win this debate? Many major scientific and medical theories have at some point in their lives been held by a minority, and often a despised minority. Many subsequently discredited positions have been held by a triumphalist majority. As for threatening to have me blocked from editing, please do go ahead and try. I am very happy to take this to the highest available authority in Wikipedia, in order to ensure that the truth is not censored. Threats of this kind are no substitute for argument. What are you trying to explain to me? That you're right and I'm wrong? Are you? Where is your objective proof, your train of logic? You don't know that,cannot prove it by evidence or the rules of debate and have no business insisting that your personal view, however passionately held, should be given primacy over my equally legitimate one. So you reach for the censor's blue pencil, the last resort of those without an argument. The whole point of my edits is to show that the subject is one on which doctors and scientists differ. This is a contentious issue. It is simply wrong to present it as if were settled. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We refers to those who support the current consensus about this article. You keep inserting a bunch of weasel words, which is unhelpful. There is already an entire article about the controversy surrounding ADHD. It covers the arguments quite well. --Versageek 22:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

These are not Weasel words, which are designed to obscure or mislead. they are the exact opposite. . They transform assertions of fact into what they are, statements of opinion. Anyone researching ADHD needs to have the controversy fully explained on the entry about the alleged complaint. It should not be buried in an annexe. The fact that 'we' support the current consensus gives you, so far as I know, no special rights repeatedly to delete my contributions. A consensus is not, so far as I know, arrived at by the hostile suppression of dissenting views, along with patronising remarks about 'explaining it to me for the 100th time' as if you were the fount of all knowledge and I an ignorant child. You have done nothing here to show that you can defend your position. I think the current consensus results in an article which is highly partisan over an unsettled matter. That is why I made my edits. Can we please take this to whatever disputes process exists?

Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that Clockback doesn't need my contribution or support on this matter but it seems to be a consensus thing and I believe this is important and that you are wrong in opposing him. I reverted the last edit because the 'disputed' tag was insufficient - it gave a link to the top of this talk page and you have to trawl through tons of stuff, inluding jokes, to find this issue. A reader probably wouldn't do that. You have proved that Clockback is right, in alerting us to the fact that there is an article stating exactly the opposite of this one. I think he is looking at this article from the point of view of a concerned, and possibly not that PC literate, parent. Logic would tell that parent that this entry would contain all the facts and it doesn't, it does what Clockback says it does - presents opinion as fact. Surely the most sensible thing to do would be to combine the two articles? I looked up ADHD tonight after a discussion with friends and typed in 'ADHD ADD wiki' and the 'controversy' was not listed - I expected all the facts to be in this article and they clearly are not. That's why I reverted and stated my opinion. I think the two articles should be combined. Miamomimi (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Medical science and reliable sources specifically indicate that this is fact, not opinion. If Peter wants the world to reject the idea of ADHD, then he needs to propose those ideas to the medical community, and properly back up those claims. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Ned Scott 00:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to make note of the controversy earlier in the article than we do now (using appropriate wording) then, either source & reword those "critic's say" sentences that I tried to integrate under the diagnosis header or remove them. --Versageek 01:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Baughman is nothing but a blowhard fringe antipsych critic. He gets paid by scientology and creates content for their media. Please show me the research that he has done, or any paper of his cited by notable researchers. Granted, he is very good cherry picking info to support his highly biased viewpoint. His website is not fredbaughman.com but rather ADHDFRAUD.com. He has come up with some beauts. In the quote below he explains away all the research done on the most studied childhood disorder of all time:..you have bio-psychiatry "researchers" not really biologists, not really researchers or scientists, apply the tools of biology and medicine to these entirely normal persons (some infants and toddlers) and, in this way you create a "scientific" literature, that becomes the stuff of their "scientific" meetings.

He is totally fringe. Cite other sources beyond Breggin and the other Antipsychs please. ADHD is accepted as a disorder by every health institute in the US, and as I know it the whole world. WHERE IS THE CONTROVERSY?...besides in the minds of antipsych critics and religious groups such as Scientology? Really what should be done is that someone should take the time to show the ADHD controversy page does not belong in Wikipedia.--scuro (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Scuro, there is a pernicious form of incivility which consists of gratuitously insulting someone respected by another, and what is in your post above is clearly gratuitous to me, it is not necessary for working out the problems with this article (or, alternatively, with an editor trying to improperly change the article), the effect is, instead, to troll for outraged response. Stop it, please. Try applying WP:NPOV to your own writing here. There is content in your writing above which can be stated in an NPOV manner, I assume. But it is not. It's polemic, which generally does not belong here. --Abd (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am encouraged by the response of 'Versageek' and propose to wait for a reasonable time for the self-appointed guardians of this page to make the modifications suggested. Otherwise I shall make them myself. I repeat that I am more than happy to take this matter to the highest arbitration available. having absolute confidence that my edits are justified. Mr Scuro's base ad hominem attack on Fred Baughman surely disqualifies him from any further discussion on the matter. Anyone who thinks this manner of debate is productive or likely to generate truth has missed the point of Wikipedia . Baughman is, as I suspect no other contributor to this site is, a qualified neurologist. He is now retired, with many years of paediatric practice, which would seem to me give him important expertise on the matter. He is not a Scientologist. I met him two years ago in San Diego, where he lives modestly. His interest in this matter appears to me to be disinterested (though it was sparked by an attempt, made on the initiative of a teacher, to diagnose one of his own children with 'ADHD'. The child's problems vanished when his teacher changed). He seemed to me to be a decent' level-headed and - crucially - scientifically informed and medically experienced person. He has written a book on the subject entitled 'the ADHD Fraud' which makes a cogent (if emotional) case against what he regards to be a grave wrong, his attacks on the attempts to establish an objective test for ADHD being the most important part of the book, where his neurological expertise comesinto play. The reasons for his strong emotions on the matter will become clear to any reader. Mr Scott says "Medical science and reliable sources specifically indicate that this is fact, not opinion. If Peter wants the world to reject the idea of ADHD, then he needs to propose those ideas to the medical community, and properly back up those claims. Wikipedia is not a soapbox". A fact, in science, is something that can be established by a repeatable, falsifiable, objective experiment subject to peer review. Can Mr Scott direct me to such an experiment showing the existence of ADHD, or establishing an objective, scientifically measurable diagnosis for the alleged complaint? No, he cannot, because no such thing exists. Therefore medical science does not indicate that ADHD is fact, but that it is a widespread but not universal contention, the point I seek to make, and a point which, I repeat needs to be known by those whose children are being prescribed with powerful, objective psychotropic drugs. If the 'treatment' for 'ADHD; were as vague as the diagnosis, I do not think this controversy would be anything like so important. It is the mismatch between subjective, non-physical, non-chemical non-invasive diagnosis, and objective, physio-chemical, invasive prescription which is so startling. It is a contention, not a fact, however powerful its supporters may be. Lovers of freedom know from history that the rightness of a cause is not measured by the number of supporters it has, or how modish it happens to be. A parent seeking help from the medical profession for a child with behaviour problems needs to know that the diagnosis is contentious from the start, and in my view also needs to be aware of the powerful financial and social interest groups unquestionably ranged behind the ADHD lobby. Medical practice is regrettably subject to fads and misapprehensions ( see the proposed precautions against cot death, which 25 years ago were a stern instruction to lay babies on their faces, and are now exactly the opposite, the horrible fashions for pre-frontal lobotomy and ECT, the surgical fashions in the 1950s for appendectomies and tonsillectomies, now long abandoned etc). As Mr Scott rightly says, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I use every platform to which I have access to campaign against ADHD, being morally revolted by the mass-drugging of what I believe to be healthy children. But I am quite specifically and clearly not seeking to transform this entry into an anti-ADHD tract. I am, as I have stressed before, anxious to ensure that the existence of a controversy is made clear, and that the wording of the article nowhere implies that contentious opinions are settled truth. Truth is the daughter of time, and I personally have little doubt how the 'ADHD' cult will be viewed by posterity. I may be wrong, but even if I am, I think Wikipedians should be doing all they can to ensure that the entry on this subject will look respectable 20 or 30 years hence, whatever the outcome of this controversy. To pretend that there is no controversy, and to belittle one side of it by name-calling, may be fun. But it is not encyclopaedic, and it doesn't aid the truth. My thanks to 'Miamomimi' for her reasoned contribution, most welcome. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fred Baughman = fringe source

Simply because someone is, or was a Dr., doesn't make them a majority opinion or even minority opinion. There were many Dr.'s involved in the holocaust, could we quote from them and call it majority or minority opinion? No, Peter...you would do well to read up on Wiki policy in this regard. Here is the link to a PBS series on ADHD. Here we learn that Baughman was paid by Scientology. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/interviews/baughman.html. If you are still going to hang your hat on Baughman I can go to the trouble of finding more sources, and more direct quotes, like the quote where he discounts all scientific research on ADHD in the field. The point I am making is that he obviously biased, in fact I can think of no worse source to quote from on the topic of ADHD. His bias is blinding. He does tell a compelling subjective story though. We hear of the poor plight of duped parents often, he does make himself out to be a knight in shinning armor. Baughman does harp on constantly about how there is no medical test for the disease ADHD. First off, it is not a disease but a disorder. Disorders are disorders because if there was a known medical test for the condition they would be diseases. There are many disorders where there is no foolproof test for diagnosis and they would include conditions such as Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and Parkinsons. Oh I forgot, he denies all mental disorders exist.

You can call us names but in the end it will come down to citable sources. I've been involved in arbitration before. You better get your ducks all lined up in a row. Not attempting to cooperate with other editors, and then acting unilaterally would be a major strike against you. The first order of business would be to find good reliable sources which state the diagnosis of ADHD is a controversy. Good luck!--scuro (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, where in the link that you provide above is it shown that Dr Baughman was 'paid by Scientology'? Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It does not say that, directly, however it does establish a consulting relationship. This is in the sidebar, I missed it myself on first reading. "An active opponent of the ADHD diagnosis, Baughman has been a child neurologist, in private practice, for 35 years. He is also a medical expert for the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), an advocacy group founded by the Church of Scientology in 1969."

He might be a volunteer, possibly, that could quite possibly be determined from other sources, particularly if CCHR is a tax-exempt nonprofit. However, it's moot here. The point is that he is associated with that group, as reported by a normally reliable source. I'd suggest to scuro, though, that this comment here was unnecessarily inflammatory. Seeking consensus here would involve determining the notability of Baughman's opinion and whether or not this opinion is sufficiently notable to be included in the basic text of the article, rather than in a specific controversies section. The anti-psychiatry movement is, in my opinion, notable, but not sufficiently so at this time to require mention in every place that an opinion from it is apparently controverted by common agreement among experts. I've suggested to Clockback that he study WP:NPOV, there is guidance there about the issue of balance in presenting controversy. We do not have to present argument in an article on planet Earth that it is flat, even though I've encountered people who, to this day, believe that.--Abd (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have researched this topic as extensively as I have, and you have seen him or his statements in videos and many CCHR documents, you would realize that Baughman is anything but a volunteer who just happened to offer advice to Scientology for a brief while. He is labeled a "medical expert" by scientology, it would be highly unusual to call a volunteer a medical expert within your worldwide organization/ religion. Abd, you saw my action of pointing out this relationship as inflammatory. I see it quite differently. Here is a religion that doesn't believe in mental illness. This is obviously a fringe viewpoint and Baughman was/is? the medical expert for this religion. What I am pointing out is a clear bias that goes right to the root of neutral point of view. His viewpoint isn't neutral. Before you consider the notability of his opinion wouldn't it be best first to determine if he is a reliable source on this article?--scuro (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

scuro seems to think that the issue I've raised is related to whether or not Baughman is a reliable source. It's not. It's about Wikipedia process, about how editors with widely varying points of view come or do not come to consensus. Scuro, you have entirely missed the point. I did not state that pointing out the alleged relationship of Baughman to Scientology was inflammatory. It might be relevant. What I pointed to is the *manner* in which you did so. If this ever goes to Arbitration, you are going to look really, really bad. I'm not concerned with how Clockback looks, he's a newbie, appears to not have a clue what he is doing. You've been around longer, and you should know better. Read over these diffs: [4] [5] see if your language, which was polemic, was *necessary*. If you think so, well, you are going to have continual trouble on Wikipedia, it's likely to get you sooner or later. Clockback has indeed pointed out something: the present article is a bit imbalanced. There is notable controversy. Whether *Baughman* is notable or not. And that controversy is not properly represented in this article. It might not take much, and certainly every fringe argument does not get space and certainly not equal space with mainstream opinion.

scuro, let's focus on the article, and, please, be careful what you write here. You wrote, for example, "Here is the link to a PBS series on ADHD. Here we learn that Baughman was paid by Scientology. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/interviews/baughman.html." [6] What you wrote was incorrect, and you have not acknowledged that. I read the source, and it does not mention payment. Period. A statement like that to someone like Clockback simply convinces him that he is arguing with dishonest idiots. I don't think that is true, I think that, however, your certainty that you are right leads you to read things into the source that aren't there, and that is dangerous for anyone. By all means, use the fruit of your research to make sure that what is in the article is properly sourced, and that fringe "science" is not given more than its due, whatever that turns out to be. I suggested that you try to demonstrate NPOV *in what you write in Talk.* You can use yourself as a source for NPOV, that only conflicts with WP:RS and WP:OR, which are not POV issues. So you can state whatever opinion you like in Talk, sourced as your opinion. You can also simply state observations, things you know to be true, but ... did you know that the article you linked to didn't state what you claimed it stated? Anyone can make a mistake. Did you make a mistake? If so, the proper thing to do is to admit it, not to try to justify it by replacing a strongly-asserted "fact" with a weak inference, as you wrote, "He is labeled a "medical expert" by scientology, it would be highly unusual to call a volunteer a medical expert within your worldwide organization/ religion." Why would it be unusual? Religious organizations *commonly* experience experts -- and others -- who volunteer. It's a bogus argument. And it distracts us from dealing with the article. Clockback has been challenged to learn about Wikipedia standards, to try to focus on making *one* change, not massive changes, to find reliable sources, etc. He has just as much right to edit the article as you -- though he's certainly made some errors that could get his metaphorical wrist slapped. He violated 3RR, I just reviewed the contributions. User:Versageek reverted edits of Clockback and warned him. Versageek is a new administrator, so Clockback is one step away from being blocked, Versageek has the button to do it, and he could do it at any time. Clockback has been begging for the someone to complain to the "authorities," at the same time as he was edit warring with what passes for local authority around here.--Abd (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure I made a mistake, it's been a while since I looked at that article and I assumed the article explicitly stated he was paid by Scientology, it doesn't. There is a real possibility that he could be a volunteer medical expert for the CCHR but that would not be typical for the responsibilities or the work he has put in. Abd, I would kindly ask that you stop the "Dr. Phil" interpretation of my brain process and Clockback's...though, that certainly doesn't move the article forward and could be construed to be just as inflammatory as the behaviour you are illustrating.

So lets focus on the article. Where is the controversy? If this contention is to be added to the main article then please find the citation from any health institution in the world that ADHD is a controversial diagnosis or a fake disease. If not from the health profession then how about a legal judgement which questions the diagnosis? It certainly has been attempted. If not from there then how about any university in the world that states that ADHD is a controversial disorder. We are talking about the major pillars of society and you would expect them to comment on fake disorders. Baughman really doesn't matter. If there are no other citable sources besides Baughman, the additions wouldn't really have a leg to stand on. Now if the issue is not about controversy but rather about tweaking some of the wording, this is a discussion that might bring immediate results.--scuro (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Right. --Abd (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I remember reading from Baughman, this is what he believes:

• 1) Mental disorders don't exist.
• 2) Medication for a mental disorder automatically changes the body in a permanent and negative manner, even on the first dose. These drugs are all very dangerous taken as prescribed, including Ritalin.
• 3) All scientists who study ADHD are off base and offer nothing of value.
• 4) Drug companies have brain washed doctors and society in general.

All of these beliefs are fringe beliefs and taken as a whole show blinding bias more akin to a faith based belief system. Unlike scientists, Baughman's beliefs don't change over time. Go back decades and what he states then is identical to what he states now. Scientists on the other hand change their viewpoint as more information is known. All of this relates directly to his reliablity of the source.--scuro (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Majorities do not decide scientific truth, and nor does fashion

You don't get it, do you? More ad hominem abuse, and more threats. No actual arguments, except one for my side that you didn't intend to make. Once again, I beg you, on bended knee, to report me to arbitration, or whoever it is you imagine will award these 'strikes' against me. I long for a disinterested person to enter this matter. Do you? You don't like Dr Baughman. Too bad. Every one of your contributions strengthens my case, packed as they are with ad hominem venom, and empty as they are of arguments about the issue at stake. I'm also touched and pleased ( as you somehow didn't foresee that I would be) by your admission of the rightness of my most fundamental point, that there is no objective test for the presence of this complaint(I do not use the word 'disease' to refer to 'ADHD' for this very reason). But shouldn't this distinction be made clear, from the start to the lay reader and worried parent who will be the most important reader of this entry? You say :"Disorders are disorders because if there was a known medical test for the condition they would be diseases". Well, exactly. Thanks very much. This is the only point I wish to make. On it hangs everything else that I say, and all the edits which I have been trying to make and which you and others have repeatedly struck down, using a mysterious authority which you have arrogated to yourselves. If you would make the point that there is no objective test for 'ADHD' in the opening paragraph, then I would be more or less happy, except that all the subsequent references to 'ADHD' would then need to be qualified, as I have repeatedly sought to qualify them. In which case the entire article, with its false assumption of scientific certainty, its (weaselly)repetitive use of the passive "considered by" needs to be edited to restore objectivity. I may not like the advocates of ADHD either, but the point about them is not that they are nice, brilliant, biased or whatever, or the opposite, or that any of them may or may take money from whoever they do or do not take money from. The point about them is that they have a subjective theory they cannot prove, on the basis of which millions of children are being given powerful objective drugs. As I said above, if the 'treatment' for 'ADHD' were as vague and nebulous as the diagnosis, I wouldn't worry. But it isn't. It is the mismatch between the two which is so important.

Yet again, let me point out to you the simple, unquestionable fact that scientific truth is not and cannot be a question of minority or majority, or of how fashionable an idea happens to be at any given time, or there'd never be any scientific progress. Orthodoxy always has the advantage, which often delays the arrival of the truth. If I were you I certainly wouldn't get into where the various camps in this argument get money from. I don't deny that Dr Baughman is biased. Of course he is. He doesn't deny it. So am I. I say I am. But my edits were deliberately restrained, and limited to attaining neutrality between the two sides in the controversy. The difference is that I am conscious of my bias, and of that of the witness I adduce, but you seem to think that you are immune from any partiality, and that your witnesses are likewise wholly disinterested and without partisanship. Don't be silly. Nor do I maintain that Dr Baughman is a flawless human being. The point is that he is a qualified neurologist(are you?), and an experienced paediatrician (are you?), and he offers scientifically verifiable criticisms of the diagnosis of 'ADHD'. You have stated above that you accept his single most important contention, that there is no objective test for the presence of 'ADHD'. I would of course welcome it if other doctors joined him (and now you) in large numbers. Many scientists are certainly highly doubtful of the diagnosis . But does it cross your mind to wonder whether there are any reasons, other than the ones that you cite, why they don't? As for "good reliable sources which state the diagnosis of ADHD is a controversy", I don't have far to seek. Wikipedia itself has an article on this very controversy. How do we go to arbitration now? You seem very keen to do so, but never actually do. In that case, please allow me to do so. But as a novice in these matters, I need to be told how to set about it. Can you, or someone else, tell me what steps I should take? Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Clockback, I suggest you take a step back, and a deep breath. You are identifying relatively calm correction and warning as "abuse" and "threats." This error, in fact, has gotten people blocked on Wikipedia and one admin lost his position recently because he did just this. That you are a novice allows you to make quite a few mistakes before getting bitten for them, sometimes. Wikipedia process can be glacial. You could certainly attempt to take this matter immediately to Arbitration. It would likely be refused, just as someone who attempts to take a case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court would be wasting time and money. There is due process which should come first. It starts by editors communicating and attempting to find consensus. To aid this, there are a host of policies and guidelines to aid us and the one who has been allegedly abusing you has pointed to them. Where editors fail to find agreement on a common text, anyone can request comment from uninvolved editors with an RFC. If that fails to help, there is mediation, and if mediation fails, there is arbitration, which is binding, but which will only judge editor behavior and policy application, not specific content disputes. There are also bypass processes, such as taking outrageous behavior to an individual administrator or to WP:ANI. Any administrator could decide to take direct action, such as by protecting an article or blocking an editor; such actions are always appealable.

As to arbitration, note, editor behavior will be the primary issue. Simply repeating reverts is not going to be seen favorably unless accompanied by good-faith efforts to find consensus. Basically, if you are going to revert repeatedly, your case better be solid, and even if it is solid, violating WP:3RR can result in an immediate (but likely temporary) block. And you appear, here, by the very title of this Talk section, to be confusing opinion by a scientist with "scientific truth," which is a consensus, and itself not to be confused with "reality," or "absolute truth." I highly recommend careful study of WP:NPOV and WP:V, these are policy pages, not merely guidelines.

Clockback, you have been warned on your talk page. Take that warning seriously. No administrator is likely to block you if you have not been warned like that, warning is the first step in the bypass process I mentioned. If you continue without caution, you could indeed be immediately blocked. Read the warning, it contains some good advice, answering the question you ask above (with, I think, more detail than I have given.). --Abd (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have indeed been 'warned' - by one of those involved in the controversy. I really cannot see why this is so significant. The self-appointed guardians of the page are apparently allowed to delete my legitimate alterations as many times as they like without penalty. But I am not allowed to do the same to them. I could just as well 'warn' him, if I knew how to post the fancy red triangle, but I don't. All I know how to do is to argue with facts and logic. My simple point, that this is a matter of contention, remains true and ought to be stated clearly at the start of the article. Wikipedia acknowledges this fact by maintaining an entry on the controversy. Your comparison of my position with that of a flat-earther is absurd and I could easily consider it abusive if I felt that way inclined. As it is, I have been abused by experts in my time, and am uninterested in that . Instead, I shall demonstrate the falsity of the comparisons by fact and logic, as follows: There are scientific proofs of the shape of the earth which are predictive, repeatable and objectively testable. That is why flat-earthers are absurd and it would be false equivalence to equate them with round-earthers. No such proofs exist of the existence of any complaint called 'ADHD', as even its advocate above admits. Therefore the burden of proof actually still rests on those who contend that there is such a thing as 'ADHD', as they well know, which is why they get so upset (and intolerant) when anybody says the emperor hasn't even got any socks on. The 'abuse' to which I refer is the repeated ad hominem abuse (undoubted and repeated) and unsubstantiated allegations (see above) levelled without evidence against Dr Baughman (to which outrage and offence against civilised debate you respond above with the mildest possible language, compared to the stern tone you take with me - and by the way I was well aware of the sidebar when I made my comment). The threats are exactly that, repeated threats to report me etc, which are never actually fulfilled, much as I would like them to be - another characteristic of threats. What other word would you use? I'm happy to adopt any reasonable alternative. And now you're doing it too. If I continue *what* without caution? I'm stating my case on the talk page, with great patience and despite the unwillingness of my opponents to deal with my arguments, clearly made. Their only response is to make nasty remarks about Dr Baughman. I have held off restoring the censored material in the hope of a compromise. I continue to do so. But a compromise involves some movement by the pro-ADHD faction which appears to think it owns this entry. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware, Clockback, that you are making pure ad hominem arguments? Consider the warning placed on your Talk page. It does not matter *who* placed the warning. It's there and you are now on notice as to WP:3RR and other policies, and you may now legitimately be held responsible for following them. I have not researched to see if you have actually violated 3RR. That is *your* responsibility. Read the policy; neglect it at your own risk. Lest you think this process is biased in some way, a 3RR warning was placed on my own Talk page by a sock puppet for an editor involved in an edit war with me. The administrator looking at it promptly blocked everyone in sight, including me, as a "calm down everyone" kind of measure. My block was quickly removed, the sock was permanently blocked. Placing a 3RR warning will, if followed up by a complaint, indeed attract administrator attention to the complainant as well as the alleged offender. The policies apply to everyone, even to administrators. You ask a lot of questions above and make a lot of statements that could invite argument. Slow down. Decide upon a goal. What *exactly* would be the *first* step toward what you see as an improved article? Forget about the other editors; every article has biased editors and they *help* improve it *if* they come to understand policy and the Wikipedia principle of Assume Good Faith. I know it can be hard sometimes.

Look at it this way. If you have the goal of improving the article, the way you are going about it is not going to work. Too many issues raised too quickly, too many controversial edits at once. Is Baughman and the anti-psychiatry movement mentioned at all in the article, including external links? If not, is this a violation of Wikipedia policy? If you think it is, attempt to fix it. Stay focused on the *policy* and the *article*, not on the other editors, your opinions about them will simply distract you, and, indeed, may enrage you. Drop concern about them, if you can. If you can't, may I suggest medication? (That's a joke, by the way, but it points to how our emotional responses to things may disable us from being effective, which I'd call a "disorder.") As to my own position, I have long been diagnosed with ADHD, and my regret about it is that I did not pay sufficient attention to the diagnosis for a decade. My guess is that I'd be a half-million dollars richer. It's a disorder, I have utterly no doubt about it. The edges of the diagnosis are certainly debatable, and it is entirely possible that it is over-diagnosed. But I'm not marginal, at all. When I finally read Driven to Distraction, I got chills on every page from self-recognition. And there is much much more I could write. So am I unbiased? Probably not. But I have no specific opinion about Baughman and it seems to me that you are judging every contributor, every editor, with an automatic classification of them into pro and con. It's normal for editor misbehavior to come first to the attention of those interested in the article. Nobody else is watching! Definitely, cabals of editors can come to exist even without planning, but you are *not* being censored. Every change you make remains in History, and you will note that nobody is taking out your Talk contributions (it's generally offensive to do so unless there is a very good reason, there is even some discouragement of taking out one's *own* contributions if others have already responded to them -- use strikeout if you decide that you said something wrong).

Summary: slow down, aim for *one* small improvement. Negotiate it. There are editors here who care more for NPOV than they do for any personal POV. I'm one. If you confine yourself to one narrow point, you will find support for what is legitimate about your effort. Otherwise, well, you can lead a horse to water.

One point: those undoing your edits are subject to the same reversion limits. If you think they are violating 3RR, warn them, and consider filing a complaint. I doubt that they are, but do realize that even *one* revert in one day can be considered excessive, particularly if it's edit warring, it is up to admin discretion. What I saw of your contributions, though, is that they did not satisfy Wikipedia standards for sourcing and balance, and *anyone* may revert such contributions on sight, generally. *Discuss* possibly controversial changes in Talk *before* making them to the article. Yes, you can be bold, but also be aware that bold editors better know what they are doing. On the other side, you get to make lots of mistakes without consequence *usually*. Refusing to learn from mistakes, though, will get you in trouble everywhere, not merely on Wikipedia.

--Abd (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not aware of any such thing. An ad hominem attack is an attack on the person( eg the attacks by some above on Dr Fred Baughman). I have attacked the methods and the arguments(or rather the lack of them) of those who have arrogated themselves the right to censor legitimate contributions. I have also clearly stated that I will not change the article while I seek a compromise. No compromise has yet been offered by the unquestionably pro-ADHD editors who have removed my edits on the grounds that they do not agree with them. At least, they have yet to produce any other grounds. I would happily negotiate an improvement with anybody who showed any sign of negotiating anything. All I get is ad hominem attacks on Fred Baughman, and threats to report me to the authorities, which I beg the authors to act on. Please. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, you have said it correctly: you are not aware, see below. There is an exception to the reversion limits. I just reviewed the article history, and you made 4 reverts in 24 hours, edit warring. Who were you edit warring with? Clockback, you reverted an administrator's reversion of your reverts. The user who warned you, on your Talk page, is an administrator. You claimed above that the warning was from one involved in the dispute. That is an ad hominem argument about the warning -- i.e., you think you may disregard the warning because it is from someone who you think has a conflict of interest. Yet your edits were so blatantly in violation of Wikipedia policy that an administrator appears to have been motivated to revert you repeatedly. That is not necessarily an involvement in a content dispute, he might, assertedly, simply be doing his job. You were edit warring with an administrator, Clockback, which is not a terribly bright thing to do. He could block you immediately for the WP:3RR violation. Even if you *are* Peter Hitchens.

Look at how inaccurately you respond to what is said to you. If you are, indeed, Peter Hitchens, the journalist, you might be concerned about that. You were told that you were making an ad hominem argument. You responded with reference to an "ad hominem attack." An attack is not an argument and an argument is not an attack. An ad hominem *argument* is an argument that something is false (or, in this case, to be disregarded) because of whom it comes from. In this case, you wrote, "I have indeed been 'warned' - by one of those involved in the controversy." You were warned by an administrator, who also was acting to try to encourage you to work out improvements to the article in Talk. You've also been told how to pursue dispute resolution. But "threats to report you to the authorities" -- which I did not see, by the way, where was that? -- are now moot. The authorities arrived, though how much User:Versageek will do before he moves on remains to be seen. Admins are terrifically busy, there are far too few of them and far too many users who think every opinion they have deserves to be in an article. --Abd (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A simple question for you Clockback and with your answer, I'll respond to your argument. Do the disorders Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Tourettes, and Schizophrenia exist? ...and if they do how do we determine this in the individual?--scuro (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A simple answer for you. Please stick to the subject. We are discussing 'ADHD', and whether there is a controversy over its objective existence. I am not discussing the other complaints you mention and do not wish to be distracted from my point by doing so. If this interests you, I recommend you address yourself to the sites concerned. Please simply address the question at issue which is :"Is there a controversy over the existence of ADHD?"

Since there undoubtedly is, as acknowledged by the existence of a separate Wikipedia entry on that very controversy, the article is seriously deficient because of its lack of NPOV on the dispute between those who believe in 'ADHD' and those who don't, and also because of the persistent use of weasel expressions, especially the passive voice. We have already established in this discussion that even those who believe in 'ADHD' accept that there is no objective test for its presence, and therefore cannot maintain it is an established or undisputed scientific fact, or even one open to disproof. Please do respond soon. I have refrained from further edits in the hope of a compromise, but cannot wait indefinitely for any sign of one. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Scuro asked a relevant question. The disorders mentioned are *routinely* diagnosed in a manner that can be considered subjective by the standards you appear to be applying. So you are being asked what standards *can* be applied to determine the "objective existence" of ADHD, that are not simply invented for one particular syndrome. "Objective existence" is itself a problematic concept, one particular way of discussing "reality." Is there an objective proof for objective existence? So let's not go there. Articles on Wikipedia are based on notability and reliable source, not "truth" and "reality." Reliable source can exist for total fantasies, which can also be notable. Unless there is consensus that it's a fantasy, we can't state that it is, that is POV. We can note controversy, if the controversy is "notable." Yes it's circular, I've been trying to work on that aspect of policy. Ultimately, short of appeal to User:Jimbo or the WMF board, notability is a matter for community consensus, there *is no objective standard of universal application,* though there are certainly guidelines and policies, all of which have exceptions. Once again, Clockback, you are being pointed to community consensus. Participate in it, with civility and patience, it can take lots of both. You will have assistance, and the issues you raise are not going to go away, even if you give up. --Abd (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To 'Abd': 'Versageek', the administrator you mentioned, is a participant in this discussion and appears to me to take one side rather than the other. This is a simple fact. See above. Clockback (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Clockback, the question of conflict of interest by administrators is a complex one. Administrators often intervene to suggest proper process, and will sometimes do the reverts necessary to maintain it, even though they have no personal interest. It's hard for an editor with a strong point of view, sometimes, to see the administrator intervention as neutral. However, my personal opinion is that User:Versageek was encouraging you to attempt to find consensus. He was absolutely correct in that, and it is possible, if you can deal with other editors as peers. There are editors here who have agreed *to some degree* with what you are trying to do, and that includes me. The article needs work, and editors with strong points of view can very much help articles *if* they will respect the principles of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and, particularly, NPOV. It is possible for people with radically differing points of view to come to agreement on text that is neutral; if it is done properly, all parties -- except those who simply want to argue endlessly, there can be no pleasing these -- will agree, "that is true." It has to do with stating as pure fact only that which is either true consensus, or that which is so widely considered to be true that different opinion is "fringe." Even in the latter case, fringe opinion may be notable as such. What is short of consensus is *attributed.* I.e., "according to So-and-so, the moon is made of green cheese.[ref] According to Fulaan, So-and-so was joking."[ref]. If the reports are true, So-and-so will agree that this is true and balanced, and so will his supporters. (I'm assuming that So-and-so wants to perpetuate the joke, or actually does believe the Green Cheese Theory.) Why we would consider this notable is another story. Media reports can do it. I've claimed that wide internet discussion can do it, but this is problematic, because a very few internet users can create what appears to be wide discussion. I have seen, however, inadequately sourced material, per WP:RS, remain even in the face of objection in an Articles for Deletion debated, because enough editors agreed it was important. Consensus *can* -- in practice -- overrule even policy, even though theoretically policy trumps consensus. This is a *community*, Clockback, it's important to understand that, a community building an encyclopedia. The community is vast and includes people with just about any imaginable point of view, and if it doesn't, it will soon.

Look, if you are indeed Peter Hitchens, and WP:AGF requires us to at least tentatively assume you are (plus, who else would create Peter Hitchens and put such time into it, with the real Hitchens remaining totally silent, clueless), you could write about what you want, and if your editors approve it, it could then be a source. Not yet a "fact," but arguably notable. However, WP:COI would prohibit you from being the one to put it in the article. Still, if you think something is true and important, that's a route that is possibly open to you. It does require you to stake your professional reputation on it, and that is no small thing. --Abd (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The question of a subjective diagnosis was brought up you Clockback, and your unwillingness to discuss basic issues directly pertaining to your edits certainly does not lead to consensus building. I have looked at many Baughman pages and other antipsych literature. I have yet to see them address the issue of a subjective diagnosis as a diagnostic tool in medicine. Could you please point me in the right direction if such a webpage exists.

I'm quite willing to answer your questions. Certainly that doesn't mean that I am right, but of greater importance, it leads to further discussion. As Abd indicated, two people of opposing views should be able to come to Wikipedia and create content, that is if they are willing to work together.

Personally I do not believe the existence of ADHD as a diagnosis is controversial. Again, I could be wrong but I am waiting for a proper reference that indicates this. I believe there is some guideline which states that you can't reference Wikipedia itself to make a point. I also would hold off on editing the page, the proper procedure here is to seek consensus in talk. I certainly would stop judging editors possible bias...that leads no where.--scuro (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Clockback, take this seriously. Cabals of editors do appear on Wikipedia, whether by intention or accident, it is what I call "participation bias," and it afflicts all "direct democracies." (Wikipedia often claims that it is not a democracy, but it is a kind of one, limited by the trustee's powers -- which are rarely exercised. It is more accurate to say it is not a majoritarian democracy.) The response to cabals is patient editing, hewing to guidelines and policies and only cross their boundaries with great caution, if at all. Seek consensus here, *first*. If you fail, there is further process, but that process, on Wikipedia, will -- as with common law -- requires you to exhaust lesser remedies. As it should. Give it a shot.--Abd (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the Clockback edits and I think they are obviously composed primarily of weasel words, which did not only make the article confusing, but presented ADHD as a mythLandcamera900 (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure any of you are reading what I am saying. I am taking this seriously. I have not touched the entry for days and await proposals for a modification. What are you all waiting for? The faults of the existing entry are clear under Wikipedia's own rules - an absence of NPOV on the two sides of the controversy, and the extraordinarily pervasive use of weasel words, especially the passive voice, in the article. It is absurd to pretend that no controversy exists ( several British journalists have written critically about this theory, and about the mass prescription of methylphenidate) and monstrous to belittle dissenters by classifying them as 'fringe', solely on the grounds that you don't agree with them. I have made my arguments quite plain. All orthodoxies dismiss their opponents as 'fringe'. That is what orthodoxies do. Dr Baughman's critique of the ADHD lobby's attempt to provide the objective evidence it knows it needs ( and cannot get) is contained in his book 'The ADHD Fraud' which I am sure he would make available on line. Please stop lecturing me about my many undoubted faults, and come up with some proposals, sooner rarther than later. I do not know what 'the question of a subjective diagnosis was brought up by you' means, or is intended to signify. Of course I brought it up. I brought it up because it is crucial to the argument,objective diagnosis being the general rule in medicine, and goes unmentioned in the article. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont see any NPOV issue, I do however see an huge anti-ADHD bias in your argument/source.Landcamera900 (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good for you, Landcamera. But your contribution is contradictory. If I have an anti-ADHD bias, and I absolutely do, as I clearly state above, doesn't it cross your mind that you, and others who like things as they are, might - just possibly - have a teeny-weeny little pro-ADHD bias? In which case, golly, there's a controversy, which is unreflected in the entry, hence the NPOV problem. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Clockback, I'm reading your edits. However, "days" is a little bit of an exaggeration. It has not been two days, i.e., 48 hours. What *I'm* waiting for is a reliably sourced edit that does not warp the overall balance of the article. I've acknowledged above that there is a problem with the article; *my* problem is that I don't have time to do the research to properly fix it myself. If matters are as you claim, Clockback, you should be able to do it, and to overcome an alleged resistance by some kind of edit cabal. There is no pretense here that controversy does not exist. There is a claim that it is not sufficiently notable to warrant not stating an alleged scientific consensus as a fact. What you have written above, in fact, is just as you have said, something that is routinely alleged by supporters of nearly every fringe theory. (That's the flip side of your "orthodoxies" argument.) Several users are pointing toward what you can do. As to the notion that "objective diagnosis being the general rule in medicine," that is *not* true with psychiatric medicine, and psychiatric disorders may have no detectable physical test at all (though this is often debated). It's like a programming error in the software. You could do hardware analysis until all the batteries die and you'd not find a thing. Does that mean that there is no problem? I wish!

But the brain is not a linearly-programmed computer, it's massively parallel, and the distinction between hardware and software a dangerous analogy, since memory and response are "programmed" through actual connections between neurons, i.e., they are physical, as if a computer were wired specially. ADHD *does* exist, I have utterly no doubt about that. I have it, not a marginal case, my brother, eleven years older than I, has it, which I only found out last year. Turns out he was part of what might have been one of the first drug trials for Ritalin for hyperactivity, *before 1950.* His life has been a typical ADHD story, which is the good news and the bad news. And so has mine, and all this is for better and worse. I was *not* diagnosed until quite recently, and this astonishes me, it is so blatant. All this is for background, it is not something that can be evidence for the article. What I'm saying, though, is that I may be rather resistant to the idea that ADHD does not exist. However, I have *some* openness to the idea, *if* some other explanation is coherent. And I have no firm conclusion as to the long-term effectiveness of drugs. They *seem* to work, though, that's clear.

What I *do* care about is WP:NPOV. Determining NPOV is tricky, sometimes, when dealing with allegedly fringe theories. There is a whole anti-quackery "cabal" on Wikipedia which makes concerted efforts to keep what they consider quackery out of the encyclopedia, and, in my opinion, they sometimes go too far. Quackery can be notable, plus there is a certain incidence of error in the common scientific consensus, and this can persist, sometimes, long beyond reason, i.e., even after there is reliable source contrary to it. Remember, though, the standard is not "truth," but "verifiability." And NPOV requires balance, which requires that isolated fringe theories not be given disproportional "billing" with what is widely accepted. There is a certain unfortunate tendency in modern journalism to avoid "bias" simply by giving equal billing to all sides; an example would be the issue of global warming, perhaps, and many, many political issues. What a journalist may do is to simply compile information from "both sides" and present it without discrimination; it's easy, it requires no hard decisions, no true investigative journalism. And the result is a massively confused public. If a journalist finds that the common wisdom on a subject is in error, definitely the journalist can and should present the *evidence*, but still with balance, i.e., noting that what one might conclude from that evidence is contrary to common scientific opinion. And all this is why it is assumed that a "reliable source" has been subjected to rigorous fact-checking and editorial review, and why self-published research may not be acceptable. Wikipedia is not an editorial column.

I wrote the above before seeing Clockback's last edit, and I realized that I intended to add one more comment: the article *does* recognize controversy, with reference to the controversies article. So Clockback's assertion that it doesn't, quite simply, is not true, it is, at best, incautious. (However, that article *cannot* be cited as any kind of proof that controversy is notable, and assertions that it does show that merely demonstrate that the writer has not studied the guidelines and policies. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, period, not yet (not unless and until there is some kind of reliable peer-review process). --Abd (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Abd, I am not Tim Hitchens, who is blameless in this matter. I am Peter HitchensClockback (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::::may I ask who cares?Landcamera900 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for an article re-write to achieve balance/NPV

I have requested a third party, not involved in this edit war, to either compose a re-write themselves or request another editor to action the change. Personally I have no agenda here but do not have the time to change the article myself, sorry. It seems clear to me that a change is needed as the balance and NPOV of the ADHD article is compromised by the weighting of the link to the controversy over ADHD; it is tucked away at the bottom and easily missed. There IS a controversy over this issue, not just here but within the medical community, and that should be included with due prominence at the beginning of the article. Either that or the edits that Clockback made should be reinstated. I have stated my preference earlier. In fact I think the first section could do with a re-write; it contains no history. Miamomimi (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Other editors are certainly welcome, but I'm *not* involved in the edit war. Only one editor clearly violated policy, and that was Clockback, at least it appears that he made 4 reverts in 24 hours. (Sometimes there are complications of definition, but he was also playing ping-pong revert with an administrator, who *did* attempt to help him by placing a POV tag on the article.) It appears that he may have escaped consequences from this (it *could* have resulted in a block, probably temporary, to start). There is *no* restriction against him from proposing changes here and, in fact, he could, even if blocked, solicit assistance at making edits from any sympathetic editor, including myself. The edits he made were (1) large in number and (2) badly made, "weasel words" was a comment. Weasel words may indeed create an impression of NPOV, I've been known to use them myself, in a pinch, and with an article that is not well-developed. They are not appropriate here. My opinion is that we need controversy, indeed, to be more prominently featured in the article, it's notable. Certainly it *was* notable, a case might be made that the notability has faded, which would indicate, if true, that mention here would be reduced and the "controversies" article becomes more of historical interest. --Abd (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A number of editors have claimed that there is a controversy with ADHD as a disorder. I have asked several times here in talk for a good reliable citation that demonstrates this contention. 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. The clear avoidance of providing a citation or even responding to this citation request is a glaring omission on the part of editors demanding change to the article. Communication is part of consensus building.--21:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuro (talk • contribs)

Scuro - please see the controversy article here. I'm sorry but I cannot be further involved, I have demands on my time elsewhere and hope you all sort it out. regards, Miamomimi (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading that article and it was not easy to find usable material. The PBS report was the best I found, and links on Baughman's web site that might have been of interest were dead. However, Clockback is quite certain about his position. One can read about him on his Wikipedia bio Tim HitchensPeter Hitchens, he is not a random lunatic, and professes interest in science and a scientific approach. I might conclude from this that he would have *reasons* for such a strong belief, and, so, that's why I'm letting him -- and any other critic similarly motivated, or, we should be so lucky, someone who is at the same time neutral *and* who cares enough about the article to do the research -- come up with proposed edits. I would personally then consider them and if there is anything usable there, help integrate it into the article. Scuro has also offered to help with this, and expressed willingness to consider "tweaks," I think was the word he used, in the language. So far, Clockback has not provided any such edits, and I didn't see them in what he presented previously -- maybe I missed them. However, actual research takes time! --Abd (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Miamomimi, thanks for the link. I have no doubt that there are oodles of social critics that think that ADHD is a controversial disorder. The controversy of adhd article clearly illustrates this. But social critics are a dime a dozen and typically don't carry that much weight on WIki. When we look at the pillars of society, they all accept ADHD as a diagnosis. For example, take a look at the 5 state judgments in the ritalin class action lawsuits. Those lawsuits examined the very issue we are dealing with right now. All of the cases were withdrawn by the plaintiffs before they even went to trial. Why? Because the judges wouldn't let them frame the case in the light they wanted to depict ADHD in, they realized they didn't have a leg to stand on.--scuro (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to solve notability issues in advance. Indeed, all attempts to create fixed standards are seriously provisional and subject to hosts of exceptions. The lawsuits are certainly of interest and, indeed, they should be reported, possibly even in this article. However, mind-reading of the withdrawing plaintiffs would not be allowed! Perhaps they ran out of money..... again, is there reliable source for this? 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. He or she is an editor just like you and me. He does happen to be closer to expressing Wikipedia policy, *but policy does not make content decisions,* it guides process. Content decisions are made by editors. Each of us. However, if we want our decisions to stand, we'd better seek consensus or they will disappear quickly! --Abd (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Scuro, once again I'm asking you to be careful. You pointed to the article about the Ritalin class actions, above, making a claim about withdrawal that was not supported by the article. It's true that the cases did not go to trial, but, for some of them, not because they were withdrawn. They were *dismissed* as without legal merit, which was *not* a comment on the underlying charges. Rather, they were apparently dismissed based on the free speech rights of the defendants. (However, I did not look at the suits themselves, that would be serious research, taking more time than I have today.) That other lawsuits were not filed free of these defects might say something, but absence of proof is not proof of absence.... --Abd (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This whole debate is silly, there is no NPOV issue, only some people unhappy they cant spin the article to get their little message out. People come to the article to learn about the disorder not to have wackjob anti-psych conspiracy theories thrown in their face (there is a whole article already dedicated to that issue already) And on a side note having ADHD I'm positive that the veiws of others who dont have it, and want to dispute it, have no merit. you cant convince me to disbelieve something I feel every minute of every day. Landcamera900 (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's less than helpful, Landcamera900. If, indeed, the Controversies article is as described, it's a POV fork. Not allowed. That is, it is acceptable to create a subarticle to expand on a topic which would be too much for a primary article. However, to keep notable controversy almost entirely out of this article because that one exists is contrary to policy. Rather, a reference to controversy in this article might be very brief, but, I'd suggest, not as brief as it is. If it is properly brief, it is not going to interfere with people learning about ADHD. But if it is *missing* and it is *notable*, this article becomes POV. As to having ADHD, I have it, period. I had it, unrecognized and undiagnosed, for almost fifty years. Apparently my *half-brother* was diagnosed, in some way, when I was a small child, he's eleven years older than me, but my symptoms were quite different from his, he was more classically hyperactive, outwardly. I was *inwardly* hyperactive. I now have multiple diagnoses by many professionals, and I'm taking medication, which is highly effective in some ways and useless in others. For the others, I definitely need to learn "techniques." I wouldn't be so sure that some of those who dispute it don't have it, it can be associated with the kind of obsessive insistence on being right when most of the rest of the world is wrong.... for, in fact, sometimes we can see what others can't see. And sometimes we are wrong. We are human, merely different, "smarter" in some ways, perhaps, and not in others. (Perhaps there are some for whom it is a pure disorder, I'm not claiming otherwise; but for me it's a mixed blessing.) The claim that ADHD is within the range of "normal" human personality isn't false, but it misses the point, which is that it is, in some ways, *disabling,* if untreated, and the treatment may be physical, i.e., medication, or behavioral, i.e., education or training, which also includes education of those dealing with people with ADHD. "Psychiatry" is not really very good at dealing with ADHD, often. My first diagnosis, about ten years ago, was by a psychiatrist who did, indeed, prescribe medication for me. My wife said it made my demeanor denicer, so I took it, particularly since I noticed practically no effect other than a very mild "lifting of the fog" and certainly no problematic side effects -- this was bupropion, and I was taking the maximum dose before risk of seizure supposedly appears. Basically, this was a snap diagnosis, with no serious followup, neglecting the understanding that medication is actually a fairly minor part of the treatment of ADHD. My wife was given no education, which was itself somewhat of a disaster. And I still don't understand why I didn't research it myself, that's not like me, except to say that my attention was occupied elsewhere. Anyway, Landcamera900, allowing notable fringe theory into the article, if that is what happens, isn't going to cause you any harm, nor is it going to harm the readers *if it is done properly*. I've looked at some of the claims, and, frankly, they don't stand up well to examination.

One of the more blatant problems is the insistence on referring to ADHD as a claimed "disease," which can then be debunked, ostensibly, by the critic based on an alleged lack of physical ("objective") tests. Of course, then, when it is asserted that there *are* physical tests, these are simply part of the conspiracy. You know that a fringe theory has gone off the deep edge when, to maintain it, it's necessary to assert some vast conspiracy. (Note, however, that just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you.... there *are* conspiracies, though usually not as massive as fringe theorists assert -- with very rare exceptions. Drug companies may indeed funnel money to CHADD -- it would not surprise me -- but to convert that into a belief that everyone working for CHADD is a conspirator is, actually, preposterous, and that every researcher who comes up with research contrary to the conclusions of the fringe theorist is necessarily also a conspirator is likewise. "Broad conspiracy" is practically an oxymoron, it is entirely too difficult to keep it secret. But a kind of mass delusion, even among scientists, can exist, and there can be publication bias, where research contrary to an asserted consensus, no matter how carefully done and how valid, can't be published. This has little resemblance though, when I've observed it, to what "fringe theorists" assert.)

In fact, though, physical tests for ADHD are, as far as I know, highly controversial. My guess is that *some* physical differences are likely to exist, for it's become apparent to me that we think differently than normal people, and I'd be surprised if this does not show up in some way, in some possible measure of synapse count or distribution. I make associations that most people will miss, *in some areas*, while missing associations that others will easily recognize and respond to. My guess, again, is that objective tests will be developed, eventually. Most likely, though, they will be behavioral in some way, like an intelligence test. It is not impossible that genetic components will be clearly identified, which would then lead to genetic testing to identify it, I don't know what the state of research is on this -- and I'm sure that it will all be contested. There are a *lot* of people who are highly resistant to the concept of a physical basis for the disorder, often because it's asserted as some kind of moral failing, with the "disorder" appellation being merely an elaborate excuse for bad behavior. These kinds of ideas can take a *very* long time to dissipate, long after general scientific opinion has shifted. (It's like "race." Probably most people "believe" in race as a physical reality, even though that has been debunked quite effectively for a very long time, and, watch, when this is mentioned it's pretty common for someone to pop in with, "But it's *obviously* a physical reality...." Let's just say that this argument is not for this Talk page, I'm merely giving an example that is clear to me of the persistence of myth.

--Abd (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Abd, get a grip. The lawsuits were an example of one the pillars of society not accepting that ADHD is fake. It was just an example. Some of the lawsuits were withdrawn (you might want to research some more), some were dismissed. Could I have stated that some were withdrawn and some dismissed? Yes I could have. Does it make a huge difference in the point that I was driving at? Abd, this is talk. I'm glad that you have clarified things and I have taken note to watch inflammatory comments, but talk is not the final edition of the encyclopedia britannica. If we are not required to be perfect WP:IMPERFECT on the main page, it can certainly be assumed that we are given some latitude on the talk page.

And again what is with the mind reading of other editors thoughts? Really, what is happening is that you are framing other editors content into your own subjective perceptions of their motivational actions. Do you have extensive training in this field that we should be made aware of? I have already expressed this concern previously and I hope that this more explicit expression of concern will rid you of this inflammatory practice.

Back to the article - WHERE IS THE BEEF? Give me that citation from a pillar of society that states the diagnosis of ADHD is controversial. A judge in one of the suits had this to say, "Defendants failed to provide any concrete statements to document their claims." In other words, their claims that the disorder was fake/manufactured didn't have a leg to stand on.

Finally, a little more on WIKIPEDIA:FRINGE.

The discussion of a fringe theory, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.

Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or non-scientific contexts. --scuro (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Get a grip, yourself, Scuro. You are wasting your time trying to convince us that no possible evidence can be shown that would lead to ... what? It's not clear. Secondary sources *have* commented on the claims. Look, be efficient. Let [[User:Clockback|Clockback}} or other critics propose something properly sourced. Nobody says you even have to look at it, it's up to you. But I will and there are others who will, and if I think that the material presented shows notability and reliable source, and it is stated in NPOV fashion, I may support putting it in the article. Until then, where, indeed, is the beef? My comment about the error was simply that by anticipating the argument and trying to head it off, and by erring in the process, you are feeding the trolls. (By which I mean helping inflame a critic, I'm not dismissing anyone as a troll.) I haven't reviewed the cases in detail -- that will come up if necessary -- but what you have again done above is to speculate about the meaning of a judge's comment, when, from my admittedly superficial review of the matter, it may not have meant that at all. "Manufacturing a disorder" is not particularly an actionable matter; the cases asserted, presumably, some allegedly clearer cause of action, and the judge was stating that, as to the specific cause -- highly unlikely to be "manufacturing a disorder" -- the proof was lacking. The dismissal I read about was based on free speech considerations, for the effect of the suit would be to impair the ability of the American Psychiatric Association and CHADD to express opinions about disorders, and it would take a very strong showing of wrongdoing to overcome the presumption of their freedom to do that. I would expect that a judge would *not* be ruling on the alleged fact that you claim the judge was denying, but on far narrower grounds. Unless you can show differently, this is my default position, and this is a reason why primary sources like court cases are only used on Wikipedia with caution. You just *interpreted* it. If a critic comes up with something reasonably solid, you're going to be in trouble defending against it with unusable arguments like that!

You know, there is a basic principle of parliamentary procedure, not to debate a motion that has not been seconded. There is a very good reason for it. A motion that isn't seconded is moot, it really means nothing. There is no need to object to it. There is no need to argue against it. If Clockback or anyone else puts something into the article that you think inappropriate, you can revert it, and, unless an edit war starts, nothing will happen to you. Far below this, there is no need to cream Clockback or "the critics" with proof defending against edits that haven't been made or even proposed. What he did wasn't acceptable, that was clear and not controversial. He might learn from this and come back with something more solid, if he's been listening to the advice. Why nail yourself to some position in advance? You will only make yourself look close-minded.

But one more point. Here is what you had stated: "All of the cases were withdrawn by the plaintiffs before they even went to trial." Now, when I write the word "all," alarm bells go off for me. I would automatically ask myself, "All? How do I know that?" If you had written, "Some," I'd have said nothing, for I knew that was true, at least, that was in the source. (Which was, by the way, a wikipedia article, and these can be quite inaccurate, but that's another matter.) Why did you use "all"? You may not like to hear it, but I'll assert that you did so because you were trying to make a point, you were trying to establish that a "pillar of society" rejected what you want to reject. You are warping evidence in your own mind in order to confirm your opinions. No good will come of this.

But, it's true. You did not ask me for advice. Suit yourself.

--Abd (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

First draft for suggested rewrite of Article

Here is a first draft for a suggested improved version of entry. It's by no means finished, and there is a severe technical mess at the beginning where I can;'t seem to get the (rather important)text between the references to appear. It's readable if you go into edit mode, but not currently on the page) Can a more skilled person please help? but I would hope it would form a basis for reasoned discussion. I have not yet dealt with the controversy over whether brain differences measure pre-existing states, or simply chart the fact that some people have different brains because of the way they use them. I'd be delighted if someone else could tackle this particularly contentious passage, but if not will get round to it myself in time. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC) :

Do you honestly think this is better? You simply dressed up your weasel words, I mean really it's not fooling anyoneLandcamera900 (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr Camera, I am trying quite hard to reach a sensible compromise, and do not seek to fool anyone. . Don't you think you should try too? Once again, can someone with the tech skills please unscramble the references, because at present only part of the introduction is visible here, though it can be read if you click on 'edit'. PH signed in as Clockback (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

you call that sensible? If you think your "new" version is going to be used the way it is, you will be sorely disappointed.Landcamera900 (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Clockback - I think you have done a good job on the ADHD article but I see what you mean about text being lost when published. A general rule about any programming is, if you open an instruction, to close it. As this is a general rule, for visibility here I'm using round brackets instead of pointy ones, if I use the correct tag it will action the command. So, to make something a reference it would be (ref)something(/ref) see? the (ref) starts the instruction and the (/ref) closes the command. In your editing I first notice a command to start a reference but no close, so everything until a close is considered the reference:

(ref)[7]

should be (ref)[8](/ref)

or if you use the edit option on this page you can see the real thing:

and text goes on as normal.....

Ok now because of the square brackets it's a hot-link reference anyway but notice that one is superscript, that's what the ref command does.

I'm not up on Wiki programming so not equal to amending the article (and pushed for time at the mo) but I think that might be why you are losing text when published.

If you know this already please don't be offended - missing end tags is the easiest thing in the world, we all do it.

Aside If still having the weasel words accusation (and no one else is helping out) perhaps changing the sentence around would cut down on the offending weasels?

eg. They maintain that the disorder typically presents itself during childhood, and is characterized by a persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity, as well as forgetfulness, poor impulse control or impulsivity, and distractibility.[5][6] They also consider it to be a persistent and chronic condition for which no medical cure is available.

could become: The apparent disorder, characterized by a persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity, as well as forgetfulness, poor impulse control or impulsivity, and distractibility.[5][6], typically presents itself during childhood and is considered to be a persistent and chronic condition for which no medical cure is available.

just a thought, now I really must get my head into the french revolution. C'est la guerre! Miamomimi (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Draft moved to a subpage, please edit the subpage --Versageek 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, no way. -- Ned Scott 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopaedic article is to present the mainstream viewpoint, with some reference to less well known controversy. This particular draft is primarily the controversy, with side reference to the mainstream view.--Vannin (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I had suggested that Clockback might do one or very few edits at a time. While there is something to be said, sometimes, for an article reorganization, that could be quite difficult here. The draft presented is really way outside what could be accepted, so far that it's hard to know even where to start to fix it. The introduction is more about the controversy than it is about the topic of the article, as if someone looking up ADHD, just to get an idea what ADHD is, wants to know what it is not, according to this or that critic. Frankly, it looks hopeless to me, it's so warped. Just for fun, I looked up something controversial: Laetrile. No problem with the intro. No controversy in it, just a few clear facts. The first words of the draft: "(ADHD) is a controversial diagnosis." 95% of the draft introduction is argument against ADHD as a diagnosis and against treatment of it with drugs. That is utterly out of balance.--Abd (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A possible approach for Peter Hitchens or others: If you want to introduce controversy into the article, don't start with the introduction. That's the *last* place you'll be able to get it. If you can't get it into the body of the article, you won't be able to get it into the introduction. So start with something which is reliably sourced, per WP:RS. If you can find something, and it's relevant to the article, it should be possible to defend its presence. That is not necessarily enough. Some fact can be reliably sourced, and still create POV bias if imbalanced. However, the remedy that the "other side" would properly have is to balance it, not to delete it. There should be a controversies section to this article, much more brief than what is in the Controversies over ADHD article.

Another approach is to require reliable source for claims you find suspect....

--Abd (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the working draft is a major improvement on the existing entry, giving due prominence to doubts about the diagnosis while also giving full expression to the views of those who support it, so allowing a lay reader to form an independent opinion, and stimulating her into further research. I am grateful for the work that's gone into it. That is not to say that I think it goes far enough. I would still criticise the use of the passive voice, as in 'generally considered'. Actually, (see Kealey and Greenfield) it's not 'generally considered'to be this ( if 'generally' is taken to mean 'more or less universally' , but is considered so by some, emphatically not considered so by others, and doubted in broad terms by yet others). The most recent Buffalo University study of methylphenidate, which is the chosen response of most doctors to the diagnosis, is a blow at that prescription, and by implication at that diagnosis. I also think the description greatly underplays the role of medication in treament, merely mentioning it as one aspect among many, when it is in fact the preponderant response. It is by far the most important medical reaction to diagnoses of ADHD, and by far the most significant in its major effects on those who take it. Among the most prominent critics of the diagnosis are those with the most precise scientific knowledge of disorders of the brain (see Baughman. You may dislike his tone, and I would prefer it if he were more restrained in his arguments, but he remains a qualified and experienced neurologist, which few, if any, of his critics are) . And the use of terms such as 'ADHD students' and 'ADHD kids' assumes that one side in the controversy is correct. hence my formula of 'diagnosed with ADHD', which the eagle-eyed will note is a retreat from my original "considered by supporters of the diagnosis to suffer from ADHD". What is the next step? Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why I bothered. Miamomimi (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Generally considered" may be improved upon. A more specific term could be used. It's not as bad as "some". Yes, I also think that medications role is underplayed. If treatment is employed, it may not be the first option but typically is the option which has the most success and which is also used for longer periods of time. I don't know if this information can be sourced. Baughman on the other hand is proverbially out to lunch. Come on now, one prescribed dose of Ritalin will forever change your brain? He has made so many bogus and controversial statements that he is easily shown as being not a reliable source. In the field of science he is largely ignored. As mentioned before, find other critics such as Gullieman(sp?). --scuro (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Miamomimi should not be so downhearted. Technophobes like me are not much helped by detailed instructions on where to put brackets, round or square, however well-meant and kindly they may be. Our brains glaze over. (You might as well give us detailed remote instructions on how to fly an aeroplane. We'd still crash it, while asking "WHICH red button on the left....I can't see it...Oh... you mean that one? No, not that one....)If we knew where to put the brackets, we would have put them there. Indeed, we tried in this case to do so, but it didn't turn out as planned. What we need is for someone who knows how to do it, to do it for us. AS for Scuro, yes, a dose of methylphenidate will change your brain for research purposes, that is to say, anyone who has taken it will scan differently from anyone who hasn't. If you can show me anything Baughamn has said about ADHD that is demonstrably false, then please do. It's the general 'out to lunch' type of comments which are just ad hominem, as are attempts to discredit his attacks on ADHD by reference to his opinions on other matters. It's his arguments on ADHD which we are discussing , not his qualities as a human being, and teh ad hominem stuff compels me to defend him. Remember, he is a neurologist and medical practitioner with many years in paediatric practice ( skills which don't always give a man any special abilities in public relations or presentation, but which nonetheless require some respect when the subject under discussion is an alleged malfunction in the brains of children. And one of his own children was diagnosed with ADHD, which was the beginning of his interest in the subject. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Clockback, I’m sorry I cannot help further but I have my head stuck in one of the leaders of the enrages, which is a bit worrying considering he died in 1794. I’m sure you could write a better essay on political history but.. if we never try anything new we never learn anything new. It was a bit frustrating to see your work just disappear but there seems to be some discussion now which is good. However, I can't understand why the controversy cannot be mentioned in the intro - I would have thought that the perfect place. Surely the intro is precisely to introduce all the elements discussed in the article? Oh well, best luck on sorting it out. I still think the date the diagnosis was invented should be in and by whom (and I don’t think "The Story of Fidgety Philip" counts, it could be as contrived as some think the diagnosis) I’m sure you will all forge an improvement to the article but I have to go back to Paris during the Terror. Miamomimi (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay...I can buy that you don't like generalizations about Baughman. This can be curtailed but by the same token if several ADHD quotes can be found from him that are simply outlandish, not supported by ANY reputable source...would you then agree that he is unreliable?

Now if I understand you correctly, you and Baughman believe that if a child has taken one dose of Ritalin at the prescribed level, that this can determined with a test? If so please lead me to the literature. If not, I believe I can find a quote from Baughman where he speficically states this...and I believe he is totally out on a limb on this issue.--scuro (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not my understanding. All I've seen of Baughman on this is part of an argument against the validity of Zametkin-style brain-pattern dopamine etc tests, which he says have been made on subjects who have already taken methylphenidate, and whose brains are therefore already altered by it, so that the differences shown in scans mean nothing useful in the diagnosis of ADHD. His argument being that nothing useful can then be established by pointing out that ADHD patiuents, who have been treated with methylphemidate, show up differently on the tests from non-ADHD patients, who haven't. I can't see why Baughman would be interested in testing children for dosage of methylphenidate. Brain scan tests are pretty formidable things, not to be undertaken lightly, especially on children, and I don't think anyone has ever disputed that a particular child has been given methylphenidate, and I also can't see what other purpose a test could have, except to establish whether such a child had been so dosed. This is pretty powerful stuff, you know, and the brain a very sensitive organ which, once damaged or drugged does not usually recover. It doesn't have the regenerative properties of other organs. That's why amphetamines ( which methylphenidate mimics in many ways, though it isn't actually one ) are illegal or severely controlled in most countries. But of course, if you can demonstrate beyond doubt that Baughman has falsified material, acted in bad faith etc, then he would automatically have excluded himself from serious debate. But that's not the same as him having expressed opinions on this or any other subject that you (or I for that matter) don't share or don't like. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

other symptoms

I reverted some non-DSM symptoms that were added by an IP address, but it occurred to me that a section on other symptoms could be useful - this could include the "bridging time" and other frontal problems noted by Barkley, as well as sleep disorder and eating disorder tendencies. Thoughts? --Vannin (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fred Baughman's opinion on ADHD medication

“Once Ritalin or any psychiatric drug courses through their body, they are, for the first time, physically, neurologically, biologically, abnormal.” ~~Dr. Fred Baughman http://www.pseudo-adhd.oism.info/en/doc/Fred_Baughman_2006_en.htm

So a child upon taking their first dose of Ritalin would be forever changed. There body would change, there mind would change, and I think he is also implying that their genes would change. A child on their first trial of Ritalin will have received the lowest dose possible. It's not at all unusual at this dose that the child will experience and feel nothing...yet this is to change the child forever? A simply stunningly outlandish declaration for which I can find no citable support. Do you know of a reliable source which can back up this claim?

I don't have a scientific degree yet I found this exchange on talk about Zametiken enlightening. After you read that section, scroll further down the page for more sections on the same topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder/Archive_3#ADHD_Imaging

--scuro (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you should recognise that this is your interpretation of a rhetorical statement by Baughman, rather than his intended meaning, or an indisputable interpretation of it which could be agreed on by all readers or hearers - and certainly not the silver bullet for which you seek. You have freighted it with a lot of words he doesn't use, plus an implication of your own that you admit is tentative. You're entitled to to do that in argument, but your interpretation remains your view, not a fact. His purpose is clear to me from the context in which I saw this said ( in his book 'The ADHD Fraud') He is arguing that a patient, hitherto in all respects physically normal and without physical symptoms of any kind, becomes abnormal only when they take the drug. The (rhetorical and propagandist) point is that those claiming to offer a cure for abnormality are in fact creating it. This subject does create very strong feelings in its opposing partisans, as this page reveals. Baughman is both advocate and medic. Where he is dealing with science, I believe he is scrupulous.Where he is a propagandist, he uses high-octane language (often higherthan I personally would wish, and I'm no stranger to high-octane language myself). But I do not think you have established that he has let his feelings lead him into mistakes of fact. PH logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Denial is not just a river in EgyptLandcamera900 (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

OH, Mr Camera, what would we do without you? How unimprovably witty and trenchant. Anyone who wants to know my own position on this matter in full may turn to: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/05/the_adhd_fantas.html PH, logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

awww how nice, you own a thesaurus : ) I will make sure to follow that link , because I am just so interested in what your opinion is! have a super day Mr. Pompous windbag Clockback Landcamera900 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And from the same citation, “...that virtually all of the ADHD subjects were on stimulant therapy and that this is the likely cause of their brain atrophy?” In a nutshell Ritalin shrinks brains.

So the heavy language, the bogus facts...are all employed for the sake of argument? That in fact, as you stated, this is a form of propaganda meant to counter the propaganda from drug companies. Likewise with the Ritalin shrinks brains quote. Yet you argue that he can completely distance himself from this approach when he puts on scientific hat and interprets scientific data. How is the reader to know his propagandist rhetoric from professional statements. For instance, side effects of stimulant drugs has been an area of serious research. How are we to be certain that he doesn't employ the same propaganda approach with interpreting scientific data. After all he has stated that scientific research on ADHD is flawed and influenced by drug companies. He seems to be an end justifies the means sort of fellow.--scuro (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Landcamera900 - you're right, it's also the source of the longest kiss in history. Scuro - you seem intent on convincing Clockback that your viewpoint is the only valid and sensible one and that he should therefore adopt it too and thus the controversy Clockback seeks to include in the article should by default be deemed invalid and unnecessary. I see no point in this argument - the controversy over ADHD exists and arguments over that truth are redundant. Baughman is a credible, qualified source and should be cited in the article. That is my view. /endcoffee. Miamomimi (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Clockback and Miamomimi and I believe Scuro is entirely missing the point, which is not the finer detail of whether or not the proponents or opponents of the existence of ADHD are right or wrong. It is about whether disagreement and controversy exists within the medical profession and the media over the actual existence and objective means of diagnosis of ADHD. Which it does. Therefore it should be included in the article. Simple. Nsign (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Miamomimi and Nsign. I really think we may be getting somewhere. Scuro, please pause for a moment. Note that I have conceded that Baughman has faults in his rhetoric and his tendency to pump up the temperature. We agree on that. Pocket the concession, please. But how important is it, given that he's a qualified neurologist?(and you, I think, are not) You allege that Baughman produces 'bogus facts'. A 'bogus fact' would presumably be untrue. Please give an example of one. You haven't yet, though what you repeatedly do is take a small piece of Baughman and then build upon it your own interpretation. You then proceed to say this interpretation( not Baughman's original statement) is flawed. As a method of argument, this is lacking in force. In any case, you seem to be disputing something that's not actually disputed by your own allies. Brains are measurably physically affected by drugs, and also by certain patterns of use and behaviour. I don't think you'd find a neurologist disputing the likelihood that Methylphenidate could alter the configuration of the brain of a person who took it. The brains of London cab-drivers are famously altered (in a physically measurable way) because of the special effort they need to make to memorise 'the Knowledge', a comprehensive grasp of the London streetmap on which they are rigorously tested before they are licensed. It is perhaps the toughest memory test in existence, but I imagine that students in hard subjects, such as sciences or languages, probably undergo similar changes while they are cramming for exams. The point that Ritalin affects the brains of those who take it, thus affecting any comparison for research purposes, hasn't so far as I know been disputed by Ritalin advocates. Why should it be? If the drug didn't affect the operation of the brain, it wouldn't be any use for the purpose to which they assign it. The dispute is a) whether this drug is justified by the ADHD diagnosis b) whether it is an effective or appropriate treatment for it. Its defenders and opponents can both agree that it has an effect, ncessarily physical and chemical, on the brains of recipients. Is it specially unreasonable to suggest that drug companies, as the source of so much funding and general largesse, have an influence on research, on the oprescribing habits of doctors and on the publication of peer-reviewed articles? I doubt you would find many serious scientists or doctors who would dispute that, any more than you would find many naturalists arguing about the tendency of bears to defecate in wooded areas. On a scale of outrageous statements from one to ten, that one doesn't rate very high. My point is that it can't be shown that Baughman's passion has caused him to be either lax or mistaken(or worse) in his science. If it can, my argument on Baughman's value falls. I accept that. But you can't prove Baughman mistaken by exaggerating Baughman's statements, and then attacking him for making exaggerated statements. PH signed in as Clockback (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

First thing first. If ADHD is fake or a controversial diagnosis...

WHERE IS THE BEEF? Give me that citation from a pillar of society that states the diagnosis of ADHD is controversial. Any national health insitute will do.

I've asked for this several times and still I have no reply from any editor. It's nice that you all think it is a controversal diagnosis but we can't use any of your statements as a citation.

With regards to Baughman, thanks again for the mindread. It's amazing how everyone knows what I am thinking. The point I am making is that he can't talk about an issue as both a propagandist and also as one steeped in the scientific method and be credible. Can you imagine a judge doing this? Surly you can find another source who states the same thing? Or is Baughman unique in that he makes statements about issues that no one else will make?--scuro (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

First things first. I rather thought the link in my draft to the article by Terence Kealey, distinguished scientist and Vice-Chancellor of a British university (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article440373.ece)

fulfilled your desire for a pillar of society dubious about the ADHD diagnosis and its treatment with drugs, as does Susan Greenfield, another distinguished scientist, who happens to be a member of the British House of Lords, an Oxford professor and an acknowledged expert on the brain. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/health/7093944.stm) Then again there's the Buffalo University study, which has led to questions being asked about Ritalin in the House of Lords. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/7090011.stm) I don't think anyone's 'reading your mind' about Fred Baughman. It's rather you who are reading his, by taking his statements, making exaggerated claims about them not justified by the text you produce, and then condmening them for being exaggerated. We may not know what you're thinking, but on the other hand we certainly know what you're *saying*, since you keep saying it, and it's presumably the same as what you're thinking. And I keep responding. There is no logical reason why Baughman's status as a propagandist axiomatically discredits his statements as a doctor and scientist. You're entitled to suspect that it might be so, but not to assume that it is so. And your suspicion is of no value by itself. You then have to establish , by example, that your suspicion is correct. And you haven't. Baughman is not unique as a critic. Other doctors are concerned about this (I have spoken privately to British neurologists deeply concerned, but unwilling to speak publicly because of the great power of the ADHD lobby) and I expect many more will be when it's safer to say so. He's unique in that he has single-mindedly devoted himself to the issue, has written a book about it and has an ideal combination of qualifications (Neurologist, Paediatrician) to discuss brain disorders in children. He's also retired, and therefore pretty much immune to the sort of pressures that orthodox conformism can place upon professionals. Plus one of his own children was diagnosed with 'ADHD'. Further, I have spent several hours with him and believe him to be a serious, decent and courageous person, and would count it an act of personal betrayal if I didn't defend him against ad hominem attacks. PH logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand, Clockback, but Wikipedia is not a battleground. The problem here is that Baughman, properly, and his personal reliability, are largely irrelevant. The personal reliability of an author isn't usually relevant. What's relevant is publication in a peer-reviewed journal, for "scientific fact," or at least for the allegation of such, and under some circumstances, published in an edited source (i.e., presumably fact-checked). What Baughman has written that is self-published, or simply quoted by someone without the kind of editorial responsibility normally typical for reliable sources, isn't considered a reliable source for fact or for establishing notability of an opinion. It may be relevant for establishing that *Baughman* said something, if that is determined to be notable. Essentially, this whole debate over Baughman is out of place. We could call it "trolling," because it incites sometimes outrageous and sometimes offensive comment from both sides. Baughman should not have been attacked, that's one side, and a personal defense of him here, however noble interpersonally, is out of place. A simple one-sentence comment should have sufficed.

As to what we should *actually* be about here, what is relevant is *text*. I did not support the creation of an entire alternate draft artcle, that's *way* premature. There are basically three levels of approach to the problem of balance with respect to controversy over ADHD. The first would be to clean up the article Controversy about ADHD, that is, to bring that article up to Wikipedia standards. It isn't. Many, many possibly controversial statements are made without source, or with improper source. That article should receive attention first, until it is stable and balanced. Because it is an article on the *controversies*, the standard of notability for a mention of some alleged fact is much lower, but other Wikipedia standards still apply, otherwise it would become a WP:FORK, specifically a POV fork, an attempt to create a safe place for one POV (whether the article itself or another article), and that violates Wikipedia policy quite clearly. Every article must meet sourcing and NPOV standards. Notability is relative. An article on the Earth might not even mention flat-earth theories, but an article on Flat Earth certainly will!

If you cannot get Baughman and other critical work into the Controversies article, and have it stand (setting edit wars that violate policy aside) then you will not be able to do the same with the main article. And if you cannot get the critical work in the body of the main article, then you will not be able to get reference to it in the introduction. Generally, everything that is in the introduction must be established (including notability) in the rest of the article. There is no flat prohibition against "weasel words," but weasel words often are used to cover poor sourcing and attribution. Properly sourced material in the article itself might, indeed, be summarized by so-called weasel words in the introduction. I.e., "some say," or "it is claimed that." Who says? Who claims? If the article points to sources for this, the summary in the introduction can be legitimate. Again, introductions should not be controversial. I just saw a tenacious controversy apparently resolved in a political article when a COI editor for one side edited the introduction text to reflect what an "opposing" editor believed was essential for balance, if the whole issue was to be mentioned at all in the introduction. The COI editor very much wanted a certain fact in the introduction, extracted from a reliable source, but did not want balancing fact, from the same source, to be in the introduction. I was the primary editor on the other side, and I had previously -- with some edit warring against sock puppets and COI editors -- managed to get the complete quotations in the article; every attempt to summarize the "negative" information was rejected by those editors, and it was only by movoing the whole text deep into the article that the whole story got told. Then a new sock appeared and insisted on putting, once again, just one side of this story into the introduction. Another COI editor (actually a published author on the topic) finally resolved this by writing the summarization of the negative material, which I approved as sufficient. So they have their mention of the positive -- and critics have their mention of the negative, and the result is, in my opinion, NPOV. Both sides can say, "Yes, this is true and, yes, this is supported by the source, it is not a warped interpretation, it is a fair summarization for introductory purposes."

The winner? *The readers*. So, Clockback, take a hint: I've been saying it for days. Work on *one* fact at a time. Pick one you can reliably source, following WP:RS. Your claim does not have to be perfect, but if you focus on just one claim, and the sourcing for it, any problems will surface. You might have to abandon that one fact and pick another. If you start on the Controversies article, it will be much easier, because the alleged lack of the notability of the Controversy won't be getting in the way. (If an editor thinks the controversy isn't notable, and that opinion has been expressed, again, that editor can follow WP:AFD; otherwise, it's just another useless opinion.) Much of what goes on here is like arguing about an issue under Robert's Rules before anyone has made a motion. Waste of time, that's been known for centuries. And, indeed, motions aren't discussed, properly (at least not "on the floor," until someone has seconded it. Here, because individuals can act directly (it's actually encouraged with WP:BOLD), we can consider such an edit to be a motion, and any discussion before that is informal. So, Clockback, if you can do your work carefully, you can make an edit, one single relatively small edit, and if nobody takes it out, *you are done* with that one. But, of course, there are people who are attached to one side or the other, and it might well get taken out. Then there is something *specific* to discuss, something specific about which consensus might be found. Trying to gather consensus on the whole article at once is, unless some amazing genious and master of compromise appears -- don't hold your breath --, far too difficult. Then once the Controversies article is cleaned up and properly sourced (and has survived an AfD, assuming it does -- from what I know, I'd vote "keep"), there is then a body of fact, agreed to be so by consensus (with disagreement being confined to that coming from editors who can only maintain their position by edit warring, i.e., by risking blocks), which will be the basis for introducing what is appropriate from the Controversies article into the main article. It may not be much, but I do believe that readers of the main article deserve to know that there is some controversy, and what -- in broad outline -- the controversy is about. I do *not* yet have an opinion that this belongs in the introduction, but it might. Essentially, if it does, prove it with reliable source and by convincing the relatively neutral editors. One step at a time.

It might seem like a lot of work, but, in fact, it's much less work than the path which has so far been taken, where doomed edits are being presented. I'm not convinced, Clockback, that you have the "stuff" to write a balanced article on ADHD (and there may be no individual here both capable of that and with the time to do it). And it is far too much work, for me, at least, to try to work with two articles (the mainspace one and the draft). One edit at a time I can handle, I can read the sources provided, judge if they are reliable or not, and consider the language, including proposing possible compromise language. I'm watching the Controversies article, I'll see any edits to it.

Let me repeat one crucial part of this: no statement may be made in the introduction which is not properly sourced in the article. "Many believe" or "some believe" are weasel words that can't properly be used unless the sources in the article *come to that conclusion*. Theoretically, our interpretation of the sources that synthesizes such an opinion from them is original research, which can't be used. (There are exceptions, but, bottom line, they aren't legitimately controversial, the true basic question being, "Can a reader verify what is asserted from the source?" and synthetic claims from many sources are probably not okay.) On the other hand, *practically*, synthesis is done all the time, and if the editors agree on it, the "police" are very unlikely to intervene. So *do not* start with the introduction. That's backwards. Fix the article first, and, as I've pointed out, the first article to fix is the Controversy about ADHD article, it will be easier.

--Abd (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I would have to agree that Baughman is largely irrelevant. Baughman is a retired Neurologist who last worked in the field in 1993, and has a habit of making bombastic statements> He isn't the only horse you should hitch your wagon too. Really, you need to do some research. I did look at your references. None of them state that ADHD is fake or the diagnosis of ADHD is controversial. Two of the sources are about the long term effectiveness of stimulant medication. Terence Kealey gives us a homey opinion piece lacking any reference to sources. The gist of his argument is that we shouldn't take the easy way out. He makes no reference to controversy or fake disorders. Once again, where is the beef?

Here is some beef. Check the Surgeon General's webpage on ADHD. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter3/sec4.html. and the NIMH webpage http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder-adhd/index.shtml Neither website states that ADHD is fake or the diagnosis of ADHD is controversial.--scuro (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, we spend a week arguing about this, and my opponents conclude that there is no controversy about 'ADHD', without apparently feeling any sense of irony. I have done all that I can do. I produce direct evidence of controversy - including statements by two leading British scientists casting doubt on the diagnosis. I also produce indirect evidence of controversy - a study showing that a commonly-accepted (by its advocates) treatment for 'ADHD', methylphenidate, is in fact now causing serious doubts. The implications of this are potent and should not need spelling out. But I shall do so. . If the favoured treatment is duff, then it follows as the night the day that the diagnosis may also have been duff. Now, Mr Scuro et al may disagree with these statements, prefer to ignore their clear implications that there is something altogether fishy about 'ADHD', and dispute, or prefer to ignore, the Buffalo study. Feel free to do so. But they cannot claim they don't exist, or that they don't indicate the existence of doubt. I have never asked my opponents in this discussion to agree with me. All I have ever asked them to do is to accept that there is a dispute, a fact that is as plain as the nose on my face. I know perfectly well that if I were them, and was confronted by these pieces of evidence, I would at least feel some disquiet about my beliefs. Terence Kealey and Susan Greenfield are not negligible figures. How do they respond? By dismissing the clear implications of Kealey's and Greenfield's expressed doubts ( why express them if there's nothing to worry about here?) or by otherwise belittling or brushing aside (often with illegitimate ad hominem comment) any witness I adduce. Now, I can actually make a similar point about the witnesses adduced by the pro-ADHD camp, which is not ad hominem but perfectly relevant, in that it demonstrates a) a possible interest in the outcome and b)an absence of scientific proof for the theory advanced. I have until now refrained from doing so because I was hoping for progress and didn't feel it would aid that. . The repeated slamming of the door of compromise in my face, under the guise of encyclopaedic highmindedness, compels me to make an appeal for the record, which may make no impact now but will I think read quite well a few years hence. To claim that my pieces of evidence are not evidence of a controversy is to make my initial point - that those most involved in the editing of this page, and most unwilling to cede that task to anyone else, are unwilling to acknowledge the existence of one, even if the Angel Gabriel were to give a press conference announcing that he had doubts about ADHD.(Imagine the 'ad angelum' attacks that would follow. 'How can we listen to a guy who goes around with wings on, and doesn't believe in evolution?' I can hear it now) . The heaps of ordure repeatedly tipped over Fred Baughman's head don't alter the fact that a doctor qualified and experienced in the precise field under discussion ( as no participant in this discussion is qualified) has expressed,and continues to express, despite being subject to endless abuse, serious doubts about the science of 'ADHD' , doubts which its proponents cannot answer. Surely anyone with any knowledge of history knows that dissenters are always in the minority, and on the 'fringe', until the moment when they triumph, whereupon everyone claims that they always agreed with them (and they are often eccentrics, or outsiders, too, as - for rather obvious reasons - it falls to such people to be first in any dissent). How surprising is this, given that several powerful lobbies and groups have direct financial and material interests in promoting the idea that there is a neurological, physical complaint called 'ADHD' , which has a neurological or hereditary origin and can be treated by drugs? These interests include (obviously)those who make the drugs and sell them at a profit, doctors in private practice who don't get paid fees unless they can come up with a diagnosis that is listed in the APA DSM, doctors in private and state practice in receipt of perks and rewards from drug companies for prescribing certain drugs, bad teachers and neglectful parents who are glad to be able to shove the blame for their failure on to the children they have themselves failed, and increasingly those parents who receive substantial state handouts (in Britain, Disability Living Allowance)as a result of their children being diagnosed with 'ADHD', and who would lose those payments if the diagnosis were withdrawn. Governments and their agencies are notoriously susceptible to such lobbies and orthodoxies, not least governments who are responsible for disastrous, disorderly state education systems which cannot even teach children to read (especially in the UK and USA) and who have encouraged the farming of young children in day orphanages so that their parents can both go out to work from the earliest possible moment. And then there are those who have been offered a biological excuse or explanation for their own behaviour which is far more comforting than the alternative. I could go on. Whereas what forces of comparable power and influence are ranged on the side of the sceptics? In my view, just one, and the only one that motivates me - the desire to see truth told, in preference to falsehood or fantasy. I cannot make Scuro et al agree with me, and don't seek to do so, though of course I wish I could persuade them. I acknowledge that their case exists and has powerful support. I accept the possibility that they may be right, though they have yet to advance anything resembling scientific proof that they are. Let me repeat that. The claim that ADHD is a neurological complaint has yet to be demonstrated by a peer-reviewed repeatable experiment. The beliefs stated in the article now about 'ADHD' are based entirely upon speculation and conjecture, and on subjective opinions. Shorn of the many long and latinate words used by these partisans, the case for 'ADHD' is 'we say it exists, and there are a lot of us and there aren't many of you and we have the government on our side'. Why then is the burden on sceptics to prove a negative, a notoriously impossible task? All we ask is that those who cannot provide a demonstrable proof of their contention stop behaving as if their assertion is a fact. Despite the ADHD advocates' complete absence of scientific proof for their dubious contention I absolutely do not seek to prevent them from making their case ( as they seem anxious to stop me making mine) , and my initial edits (instantly and autocratically rejected) left that case unmolested, and uncensored. But, despite the fact that science is in fact on my side, I get no such acknowledgement in return, and no such willingness to have my case allowed expression. My arguments are cursorily dismissed (or ignored) , my evidence scorned ( and, laughably, I am directed for my instruction to some US Government agency website in which the orthodoxy is repeated, and told that this boilerplate is evidence of something. Beef? This stuff isn't even Spam. Good Heavens. I wonder how Britain and the USA ever managed to construct free societies, given the authority-worship of their modern citizens). I have always found it a characteristic of a weak argument, that its proponent is unwilling to acknowledge the existence of an alternative, or the possibility that he may be wrong. I have made my case fully. I shall leave it at that, and hope that, in the end, it will have an effect on this entry. Truth, as I observed earlier, is the daughter of time, and I have little doubt as to which of us will be looking silly ten years hence. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all what I or other editors think, it matters what can be properly sourced. I have yet to see any reliable source that states the ADHD is fake or that the diagnosis is controversial. You want to put these bits of information into the article, the ball is in your court. Terence Kealey speaks negatively about ADHD but we are not allowed to infer this to mean that he believes ADHD is fake or the diagnosis controversial. A homey opinion piece is not the best source either. The other two sources examine the long term effectiveness of stimulant medication. There is no doubt in the short term, that stimulant medication has been clinical shown to be highly effective in treating the symptoms of ADHD. That issue has been studied to for decades and it can be clearly be stated that there is wide body of evidence which supports that conclusion. I can provide sources if need be. The issue is why longer term(over 3-5 years?) use of stimulants only, doesn't appear to increase academic standing.

Finally, it doesn't matter what the "truth" is with regards to wiki. The term "truth" has been butchered by many to justify the means. As stated in the policy section: "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".WP:V Proper debating technique also doesn't matter. This is wikiland and you have to follow wiki rules. What matters is if an editor can put their money where their mouth is. Can an editor back up words with good citations. Expressions of sour grapes and conspiracy theories will do little to impress any editor on Wikipedia.--scuro (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Procedurally, Scuro is mostly correct. Writing long screeds in Talk can be tempting, I've been known to do it myself (too often), but, in the end, what this is all about is text in the article. One can argue as convincingly as possible on a Talk page, but who is going to put reliably sourced, NPOV text on the controversy in the article? Does Clockback expect Scuro to do it? Maybe, miracles do happen. Contrary to what Clockback has been claiming, there is recognition on Wikipedia that the controversy exists. The question is not its existence, but its notability, on the balance between positions. My opinion is that the controversies (there exist more than one) belong in this article, in summary form, with detail in the Controversies article. But the exact language for doing that is not necessarily going to be easy to write, and it is crazy to expect Scuro to write it. Given the gap between the sides here, I'm not going to volunteer to write it, I suspect that I'd be wasting my time. But I will look at *edits* of the article made by others and check them. I've been saying for days, now: make *one* change to the article, you who think the article is biased. Make one change that starts to balance out the bias. If you can't get *one* change, you certainly are not going to get dozens. If you can't get specific reference to the controversy deeper in the article, you aren't going to get it in the introduction. And if you can't clean up and make reliably sourced the Controversies article, how can you expect to do it with the main article, where it's harder? (It's harder due to heavier notability requirements.) One step at a time. Or else continue to waste time and energy blowing hot air and parading your imagined position as seen from the future.

I've looked at a few of the sources claimed by Clockback, and while they might be quite adequate as fodder for a newspaper op-ed column, they are primary sources, not reviewed. An example of this would be testimony before a legislative body, which is, quite simply, the opinion or report of the person giving the testimony and *necessarily* has not been reviewed, fact-checked, and edited. All it takes is a friend in high places to get such testimony admitted. It can indeed be relevant, but, alone, it does not establish balance, it doesn't show us the degree to which controversy exists. If we have one specific edit to look at, we can start to consider the nature of the claimed source, in detail, whether or not the source is being interpreted ("original research") or warped, whether or not it is in itself a biased source, and all those other questions. We can't do this with ten claims and twenty sources simultaneously, and it all becomes generalizations about "my opponents" and "wiki truth" and other matters which simply add more heat than light and which are ultimately irrelevant. --Abd (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

One more comment in frustration at the utter lack of fairness in this discussion, all the worse for being dressed up as objectivity. You have both provoked me into a response I never intended to make. Excuse me, but can you supply me with one fact - one - that establishes the existence of ADHD, rather than subjectively asserts its existence without measurable or testable or falsifiable proof? No, you cannot, because there is no such fact, and none is referenced in the article for that reason. Every piece of 'evidence' is assertion. Here we have an alleged human disorder, allegedly treated by actual, objective, potent drugs, for whose presence or absence there is no known test, which (very unusually) differs in its symptoms according to sex, so much so that in girls it has characteristics almost opposite to those it has in boys, and whose main symptoms are actually experienced by people who are not suffering from it, but who are their teachers, parents or minders. Further, it is a complaint whose sufferers are rarely in a position to make informed choices about their condition or treatment, who frequently have no belief that there is anything wrong with them, and have medication more or less compulsorily given to them by people they love and trust(yet they are not sectioned or otherwise subject to legal disability). Yet you are not made suspicious by these facts. Worse, an entire Wikipedia article rests upon this vacuous foundation, and because it is there, I am expected to produce mountains of peer-reviewed research to prove a negative. If it were not there, and its supporters sought to place it there, you would in all honesty have to tell them to go away, if you were one tenth as rigorous and particular with them as you are with me. How ridiculous is that? And no, I don't expect 'Scuro' or his allies to change the article. But it would be good if I were not sure that he and others ( who are so much more rigorous about anti-ADHD evidence than they are about the physical, chemical or biological evidence for its objective existence, presumably because there isn't actually any) would leave untouched any change I dared to make. They wouldn't, for reasons which are obvious. And that means that if I persisted in my changes I, not they, would quickly be cast as the obstructive saboteur. The best thing by far is that the existing article remains plastered with warnings for the unwary, who might otherwise think it was part of a proper encyclopaedia. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The world is an unfair place, or a fair place, depending on how we look at it. Clockback makes a lot of assumptions that really aren't consistent with what is being said to him. No, he is not expected to produce "mountains" of evidence. Just to make one edit with one source, meeting WP:RS, backing it up. One. Peter Hitchens seems to be totally certain of his position about ADHD. Very well, if he is of a scientific bent, sure his certainty has more than vapor behind it. Surely at least one critical fact could be inserted into the article. Yet he seems to be certain, in advance, that it would not be "untouched." This is, essentially, an assumption of bad faith on the part not only of some editors, but of the entire community. Now, it only takes one Pseudoskeptic to revert an edit, even if it is legitimate and sourced; but the question is what then happens. With something to chew on, those who think the article needs more criticism of the context can become more effective. Mr. Hitchens has spent a long time, starting with massive edits of the article to his liking, then in screeds here to various purposes, but very *little* time doing what's been suggested. If he was concerned about wasting his time, he certainly succeeded in creating what he feared.

Guess what? I'm lazy. More to the point, I have other fish to fry, plus some small fry who somehow imagine their father should pay attention to them. Sure, I could do the research myself, but, given that a writer like Peter Hitchens is *certain* about criticism of the ADHD diagnosis, surely he has the necessary sources at his fingertips. Or am I wrong, and he has simply formed a strong opinion without strong basis? If so, what a waste of time, why did I bother? --Abd (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And the one fact, establishing the objective existence of 'ADHD' which I asked for, Mr Abd? Where is that? You miss my point, whether deliberately or acidentally I cannot say. I am not the one who needs to be certain. I am not the one whose beliefs lead to widespread and questionable action. I am not the one required to prove anything (except what I have proved with ease, the existence of controversy about ADHD'). In general, doctors who discover and name diseases, and propose cures or treatments for them, can produce objective, repeatable tests for the presence or absence of those diseases, and records of objectively measurable, successful specific relief using the proposed medications. This is simply not the case with 'ADHD'. The medications prescribed for it have the same effect on anybody who takes them, whether they have 'ADHD' or they don't. This lack of objective existence leads to it being called a disorder', though this enormously important distinction is often not apparent to the parents of the children involved, who trust doctors to know what they are talking about rather more than they perhaps should. In a fair argument, 'ADHD' would remain a speculative theory on the margins (nay, fringes) of medicine, where in my view it belongs. But I have not got involved in that. All I have sought to do by intervening in this article is to introduce a proper reference to the demonstrable (and here repeatedly demonstrated) fact that there is controversy about this unproven diagnosis. I am not required to produce people who agree with me, merely people eho ahve expressed doubts about eitehr diagnosis or tretament. I have done so. The existence of controversy is shown by the existence of any disagreement about it by persons qualified to have a view on it. I have adduced and (where possible) linked several important and significant statements of this kind which show the only thing I wished to establish, the existence of controversy. Each is dismissed on a quibble by the pro-ADHD group which guards this entry. Yet the entire ADHD article, free as it is of a single fact establishing that 'ADHD' has an objective and measurable existence, or is open to disproof, goes unchallenged. Why do the rules of evidence you apply always exclude my evidence, and permit yours? Why isn't the burden of proof placed on those whose beliefs result in a questionable action - the mass drugging of children diagnosed by subjective criteria? If you wish to categorise my position as an accusation of bad faith, that's your affair and your choice of words, not mine. It was you who reached this conclusion from reading my arguments. I'll leave others to reach theirs. I am, by the way, glad you are concerned about your own 'small fry'. Perhaps you might give some consideration to the many thousands of other 'small fry' now being drugged with powerful pills on the basis of questionable evidence.

Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We are going in circles. You had agreed earlier that ADHD is not a disease, yet now you use the criteria of a disease to question the existence of a disorder. Baughman often does that. You are correct, there is no 100% foolproof test to determine ADHD, the diagnosis of ADHD is subjective in that a doctor is ultimately responsible in making the diagnosis. Yet this is true of most disorders. This is why earlier I asked you: A simple question for you Clockback and with your answer, I'll respond to your argument. Do the disorders Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Tourettes, and Schizophrenia exist? ...and if they do how do we determine this in the individual? You refused to respond. If you deny the existence of ADHD because there is no objective test, then you also question the existence of hundreds of other disorders like Parkinsons which also has no 100% fool proof test. If you believe Parkinsons exists then you believe in the existence of disorders which require a subjective diagnosis.--scuro (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

IF you are going round in circles, it is because you never actually respond to my arguments or the facts I adduce to support them. Instead you change the subject(see below for the latest attempt to do so), or unilaterally classify my supporting facts as irrelevant, something you couldn't do in a genuinely unbiased forum, which (regrettably) this isn't. I have no special knowledge of Schizophrenia, or the other complaints you mention (though I am aware of controversies about Schizophrenia, and of the changing nature of the official description and treatment of it over the past few decades, and also of the growing suspicion that is often triggered by the abuse of psychotropic drugs, which suggests strongly that (unlike 'ADHD') it has a physical, biochemical existence and cause) and therefore don't attempt to influence the content of Wikipedia pages about them. You only invite me to give my views on them so that you can commence an ad hominem attack against me for my alleged ignorance or naivety, based no doubt upon your own self-awarded profound knowledge of these subjects, which probably even outclasses your special self-awarded understanding of neurology, you know, the one which enables you to dismiss with a wave of the hand the statements of people qualified in neurology but with whom you disagree, thus enabling you to cancel out any knowledge they may have of the subject in which they possess a university degree and some years of experience in medical practice, and you don't.(Or if you do, you've missed many opportunities to say so) Sorry, my dear fellow. I won't oblige, though it's clear that not all 'disorders' share the same positive characteristics, even if they do all share the same negative characteristics of not being diseases. Therefore one can have different views about each of them, and that dismissing one by no means commits me to dismiss them all. I entirely understand why you wish to change the subject - you're losing very badly on this one and of course don't wish to admit that to yourself or to me. There are no objective demonstrable scientific facts in the whole 'ADHD ' article, and you don't mind that at all, because of your partisan position. You match your relaxed complaisance on this rather important failing with a furious rigour over who is qualified to express doubts about this fantastical complaint, and what can be classified as a doubt. So far as I can see, unless someone comes right out and says 'ADHD doesn't exist' that's not a doubt for you. But even in that case I have allies. But they are on the 'fringe', so they don't count. Circular, ain't it? How could I possibly win against such an attitude? I do, however, have some knowledge about 'ADHD' and a disinterested desire to see that the truth is more widely known. Do you, by the way, have an interest in this? If so, would you be so kind as to declare it? I didn't 'agree' that ADHD isn't a disease. I had no need to do so. I have never claimed that it is. I always describe it as a 'complaint' so as to avoid this problem. But lay people, especially worried parents, may in many cases not grasp the distinction between a disease and a 'disorder', and so will accept the glaring medical and scientific nonsequitur that a complaint without physical or biochemical symptoms can be treated with phsyical and bicohemical interventions. The interesting thing about 'ADHD' is that it is treated as if it were a highly specific disease, while being amomng the vaguest and least objective among the disorders. The mismatch is huge. Please deal with this, and the absence of fact from the 'ADHD' article, which I think you have implicitly conceded by failing to supply one.. That way you can stop going round in circles. I am exactly where I have been since the start, sticking to scientific truth, rigorous logic and objective fact. PH logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What I see in the above is argument about argument and *no* "scientific truth, rigorous logic, and objective fact." Clockback claims "some knowledge about ADHD." Prove it! Be bold! Make a *single* edit based on reliable source! It's true, though, Clockback might in some way have personal knowledge that is not admissible as reliable source. I know well how frustrating this can be. But this is an encyclopedia, a collection of "human knowledge," which must be glossed as "accepted human knowledge," i.e., something more a matter of consensus than simple knowledge through original research or as a witness. At this time, Scuro has started editing Controversy about ADHD, which is where I would recommend this matter first be resolved. Improve that article, *then* bring a brief summary of it to this article (Or more, if sufficient notability can be established.) Here, the notability of the controversy is questionable. (Don't confuse this with a claim that controversy does not exist. It exists!). In that article, controversy is itself the topic, so notability becomes far less of an issue; it is possible to cite, for example, primary sources and notable opinions, and the opinions of Fred Baughman on this topic are notable. (Don't think so? AfD the Baughman article, if you want to waste your time and that of others). If there are solid arguments against the ADHD diagnosis and treatment, they should first be well-established in the controversies article, properly sourced, etc. I'm going to join Scuro in working on that article, and Clockback is certainly invited. But not to endlessly argue in Talk; rather to prove what he has been claiming. It should not take a tome each day if we proceed one point at a time. --Abd (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You write well Clockback, and I admire your tenacity and the amount of time you have spent debating. Unfortunately talk is not a debate, there are no winners or losers, and I don't think anyone has changed someone else's mind. The effort of consensus on the big picture seems fruitless. So I can agree with Abd, if you want change, pick a single point and cite it well. A properly cited point is difficult to remove. All the best. --scuro (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I would never swallow a flabby camel without chewing it. Fat! Yum! Atkins nutritional approach. Want to talk about some bad science, take a look at the situation with the "Fat is bad for you" dogma. It's been creamed, see Gary Taubes latest book. Turns out there never was a consensus for the conventional wisdom. *There is doubt about ADHD.* However, *how much* is the question that is not so easy to answer by looking at a few sources. What User:Clockback is totally overlooking is the encyclopedic process. Just how much of this controversy does he see in the Encyclopedia Brittanica? Or any other encyclopedia? Here, there is an *opportunity* to put it in, *if* it can be properly sourced. I'm sure it can, but it's work. More work, apparently, than flapping the lips -- or the keyboard -- uselessly. (Actually, the controversy *is* at least referenced from this article, by a link to the article, Controversy about ADHD. Meanwhile, User:Scuro has started working on the Fred Baughman article, as have I. User:Clockback might consider taking a look at that.

You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. ``WP:SOAP --scuro (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a blog ( check it out, especially the long 'ADHD' Q&A). And my attempts to inject some important truths into this entry are nothing to do with my 'favorite views' as the above user patronisingly terms them. My considered view (which its proponents cannot actually answer with objective scientific evidence)is that 'ADHD' is a fantasy without any objective existence. But I didn't seek to place this view in the article. All I sought to place in the article was the factual and important statement that it is a controversial diagnosis, plus some language changes to reflect this fact consistently throughout the article. This was repeatedly removed, so that I mysteriously became a Wikipedia transgressor, while those who unjustifiably removed it did not. So my point is simple. If I change this entry, my changes (though factually correct, researched and referenced) will be censored by partisans who find these facts inconvenient. Unless I can persuade them ( and are they open to persuasion?), it is clear to me that any attempt to edit this article by me will be met by the same behaviour. This is a basic issue of free speech and tolerance. They don't have to persuade me of the rightness of their beliefs. Nor have they. Nor are they capable of doing so, since they possess no evidence, only assertion. But I don't seek to have their contentious and unproven views removed from the article. I merely wish to state that their views are controversial, rather than a universally accepted and scientifically endorsed position. I actually wrote and supplied an alternative entry for discussion. Readers can see (above) what I got for my pains. The accusations of 'uselessly' 'flapping the lips' , presumably made against me, are therefore as unjust as the rest of this discussion, in which a group of partisans act as judge and jury in their own cause, exclude as worthless all evidence that doesn't support their case, and then have the nerve to lecture me about my failure to observe proper conventions. If my arguments were 'useless' it wasn't because I didn't make them cogently, logically and factually. It was because my opponents didn't want to know. Finis. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Clockback, the quote isn't mine. It comes directly from the Wiki policy page on Soapboxing. --scuro (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens is singularly resistant to attempts to help him understand what is going on here. His misunderstanding is not uncommon among those who don't really get involved with the "project," in the sense of reading and understanding the policies and guidelines, which, while certainly not perfect, have been created (and are still evolving) as a consensus of a broad community. This is an encyclopedia, and while it is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," such editing must be, to stand, according to policies which have been developed over some years. Hitchens barged in, so to speak, with massive edits that did not meet policies. "Truth" has very little to do with it, rather, writing the encyclopedia is about *process*. The process is designed to express a human consensus; ideally, when an article is mature, all points of view will agree -- if sufficiently informed and approaching it in good faith -- that the article is fair and balanced. This article is not yet in that state. How do we get it there? It is not by someone coming in and massively revising it according to their opinion of "scientific truth." Rather, there is a proven process of successive contributions by editors with various points of view, with each contribution being vetted by the community. Along the way, some editors are unable to set aside their own prejudices and attachments, edit war, and do, in fact, find themselves blocked. No evidence has been excluded from the article, aside from what might have been part of the massive edit that Hitchens started with. Rather, he argues here, perhaps with a *little* evidence, but mostly with reference to his own provision of "objective evidence" as compared to everyone else, who must be deaf. The discussion here is, to him, a debate, with him against his "opponents." It's a doomed perspective here. Look above, all the massive discussion here, what fact has Hitchens attempted to put in the article? I don't see any. He may indeed have alleged facts, but he did not attempt to put them in the article, nor did he make a specific proposal. Yes, he did a rewrite of part of the article, but the reason why that is dysfunctional has already been explained. There was, essentially, too much. Given the gap between the positions of some of those participating here, it's impossible to work on the issue globally, to try to find some overall agreement and then proceed to details. Rather, we must start with details. There is controversy over ADHD, that has been repeatedly acknowledge, in spite of Hitchens' constant repetition that everyone is denying it. But how to put it in the article? That takes *work*. It's much easier to fume and spout and ... editorialize. I've suggested that the work shouldn't start here, that it should start with Controversies over ADHD, which does mention much of the controversy. Hitchens doesn't like that article. Neither do I. It's infested with weasels. There is some attempt in it to pair critical positions with common response, but it's badly sourced and fails to expose the true nature of the controversy.

Hitchens does not seem to understand what happened to him. He was edit warring, that is, he was repeatedly reverting edits of others to maintain his own version. There is a hard limit of three reverts on a single article per 24 hour period. There are exceptions, but even long-time users who get into an edit war with someone clearly violating editorial policy can find themselves blocked. (In fact, had he been considered an experienced user, he'd probably have actually been blocked, promptly.) Had he continued as he was doing, he'd have been blocked for a short time, and if he continued beyond that, there are escalating blocks which can lead to an indefinite block. But he wasn't close to something like that, yet he seems to think that the situation here is unfair. He was being told to work out differences of opinion on the article here in Talk, but what he didn't seem to realize that this suggestion was about specific text. *Text* is really the ultimate topic here, not philosophy. Why am I bothering to explain this, since it seems Hitchens doesn't get it? Well, it's a relief from shoveling snow. In any case, nothing is stopping him from attempting to edit this article, if that is where he prefers to start. But one edit at a time, one correction or addition or restatement, properly sourced, or else he's likely to run into the same wall again. --Abd (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Existence of controversy should be in the lead

per Wikipedia guidelines. So I added it. NuclearWinner (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the existence of the disorder is disputed, what I disagree with is that those who dispute it's existence are a noteworthy minority opinion. I can provide citations from major health organizations around the world. None of them speak of the controversy of the diagnosis or ADHD's existence as a disorder. I have yet to see one good citation that clearly claims either premise.--scuro (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Scuro is correct about the balance issue. The "controversy" should be reliably sourced, we can just look at a bunch of blogs, odd letters to journals, and various opinions. So I'm not sure that NuclearWinner's edits are going to last long.... If he sources them, though, maybe. --Abd (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that there are those who dispute the existance; I think that they perhaps confuse mis-diagnosis, and over-diagnosis, with non-existence. I was initially diagnosed in 1966, when it was called MBD, Minimal Brain Dysfunction, but, as those who didn't treat me, then, said, Honors Engineering students couldn't have that. Now we know better, and a couple of years ago I was started on Strattera. It's made a difference in my life; others who are close to me notice when I've forgotten to take it. htom (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just reading the intro today and it's a bit of a mess. First of all, it refers to ADHD as a "neurological" disorder, when the source cited says that it is "neurobehavioral." (as I recall) Neurology, as a field, includes, according to current usage, apparently, behavioral disorders without specific biological pathology, i.e., "disease process." But when one says "neurological" this invites an interpretation that there is some identifiable structural difference, some chemical disorder. Maybe there is, but the source isn't saying that. The edits NuclearWinner made didn't seem acceptable to me, but I'll know better when I look them over more carefully. I'm going over the article checking references. The error in the introduction really should not have been there, it just fans the flames. --Abd (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not confused I simply strive for a more balanced article which represents the true picture of medical opinion about this condition. I have no personal agenda concerning it's existence or non-existence. Clockback has worked hard on a draft re-write of the article to achieve this (see this link) and I think it would be better if someone with the necessary technical skills could sort out the code such that we could all see the result and evaluate that. The edit that NuclearWinner made to the existing article seemed just fine to me and in the absence of a re-write, wholly necessary. I see the edit war continues and now I must rely on others with more experience and authority than me to sort it out. Miamomimi (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the goal of balance, but the true medical picture of the disorder existed on the page and was well sourced. I appreciate that CB has worked hard but labour doesn't always bear fruit. The current edit stands both unsupported in talk and and on the page. The sources provided by CB are clearly lacking. Will proper sources be provided? and will editors who are reverting the past edition clearly explain why in talk?

--scuro (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Scuro - the true medical picture did NOT exist on the page hence Clockbacks intervention and mine and others. How are the sources by Clockback lacking? I have researched this myself and seen that eminent and notable peadiatricians cast doubt on this diagnosis and their medical opinion and studies should be noted. I understand that perhaps you and others have an emotional investment in the integrity of this diagnosis but I am simply approaching this as a piece of admin - doubt exists in the medical profession and should be duly noted and not discounted as fringe opinions. Miamomimi (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Miamomimi, I've been looking for sources meeting WP:RS to justify more prominent mention of the controversy in the introduction. I have seen no attempt to put text from these sources into the article, just a more diffuse attempt to make the article "balanced" by inserting weasel words. It's an error to think that this is merely the attempt of one side to maintain some dominance in the article. Rather, consider other encyclopedias and sources of information for the general public. Do they mention the controversy? Generally, not. However, there are a few reliable sources that do, I suspect, but the question remains one of balance. That, say, PBS gives some space to Boughman does not mean that there should be *much* in this article, i.e., that every mention of the disorder becomes "alleged disorder." There is an article on Controversy about ADHD that needs improvement, better sourcing and balance, and that article has a lower need for notability for controversy to be described, because the very article is about controversy. Here, the balance issue raises its sometimes difficult head. From what I've been able to find, there are "controversies" about ADHD, but very little wide support for a general condemnation of the diagnosis itself, there are isolated critics, for the most part. But the problem is (1) lack of reliable source, and (2) especially lack of reliable secondary source, for an individual criticism is often a *primary* source. See WP:PRIMARY. A judgment of balance requires secondary (or tertiary) sources, though sometimes if editors can find a consensus, a reasonable balance may be achieved without that. This is where the rampant assumptions of bad faith become truly problematic.

These issues cannot be well addressed in the abstract, and that is exactly what Clockback attempted to do at such length above. With a specific piece of text being introduced or proposed, and a specific proposed source, we can then examine it and see if we can find consensus. Until then there is nothing to do an RFC on, nothing to mediate, nothing to arbitrate, no way to apply policy.

Clockback did set up, contrary to my advice, an attempt to edit the whole article at once. He placed it here in Talk, which was poor procedure. An admin (Clockback had been edit warring with this administrator and came within a hair's breadth of being blocked) moved it to a subpage, but the whole idea was a bad one, wasting his time, and mostly simply inserting weasel words -- but, because of his incompetence and unwillingness to learn -- he was told exactly what to do -- it cannot be easily read. There is no way we can work on the whole article at once if we can't even agree on a single piece of text about the controversy!

There are three current problems with the article: (1) lack of sources for text -- and I've found one place I'll see if I can fix today where the text (a piece offensive to Clockback) is a misleading interpretation of the source -- and (2) Weasel words instead of specific language. It's mostly lazy editing, it's much easier to say "Some disagree" than to actually provide usable sources to show the disagreement and allow readers to check in detail for themselves. --Abd (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example of something Clockback put into his draft:

(The draft is at Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder/Working Draft)

User:Scuro removed this text in one of his edits, making the draft article visible. I have here edited it to make it visible here, otherwise it would have blanked the entire remainder of this Talk page!

A British government minister, Baroness Royall, recently acknowledged concerns about the absence of a diagnostic test for ADHD during a debate in the House of Lords on 14th November 2007. This discussion followed doubts about the effectiveness of Ritalin as a treatment (and implied doubts about the diagnosis leading to its prescription) raised in a study by the University of Buffalo , and pursued by the noted British expert on the human brain, Baroness (Susan) Greenfield , Professor of Synaptic Pharmacology at Lincoln College, Oxford, and Director of the Royal Institution. Other critics go a great deal further. Dr Fred Baughman, a paediatric neurologist, attacks the disorder as a 'Fraud' in his book 'The ADHD Fraud' (ISBN 141206458-9, Trafford Publishing 2005)and asserts that the original statement of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference on ADHD on 18th November 1998 said "we do not have an independent valid test for ADHD' ( p.183) but adds (in a footnote on page 259)that this wording was later removed.

Clockback had placed ref tags incorrectly, and a user who tried to tell him described it but didn't know, apparently, how to show wiki markup without causing the markup to be active -- you place everything between <nowiki> and </nowiki> tags. Ref tags should be placed as <ref> before the reference and </ref> after it; Clockback had <ref><ref> preceding the reference text, with no closure tag, with a /, making everything after it invisible.

What was the problem with this text, besides being unable to read it? Well, the speech in the House of Lords is primary source. It is not subject to peer review, nor to any kind of judgment, aside from a very informal judgment of someone inviting the speaker, or the speaker having a seat, as to balance and accuracy. I shudder at the thought that we could, for example, cite a speech by a politician, speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate, as to fact and balance regarding, say, global warming. Such a speech establishes some level of notability for an opinion, but not necessarily enough to counterbalance a broad consensus for an encyclopedia article. What do doubts about Ritalin have to do with the subject of an ADHD diagnosis? That's a *treatment*, which might be effective, ineffective, or beside the point. Note that we cannot take a source and "imply" something from it, then stating the implication. That's original research, and it is the source of much conflict over articles. As to Fred Baughman, he's got his own article (which could use some work, note that biographies of living people have special requirements, see WP:BLP, and his work definitely should be described at some length in the Controversy about ADHD article. But here, it's *argument*. It may deserve an external link here as well as on the Controversy article, but labeled appropriately. Baughman is a notable critic of the ADHD diagnosis and of its treatment with drugs; his web site, however, is not a reliable source (it is "self-published") for anything except his position on things. Where he gives sources, and they can be verified, then the sources themselves might be usable.

Here is the real problem: it is hard to do good writing on this topic. It requires serious research. The critical material and much else necessary to write well about it is hidden behind the wall of access-for-fee that is common for peer-reviewed journals. Sometimes we can find, say on Baughman's site or somewhere else, quotation from the peer-reviewed articles. That can be used, but with proper notation, i.e., "as quoted by," and even that is shaky. To really do this work, someone would need to have access to a good library or an academic or other account with the journal archives. Someone like Clockback can read Baughman and get fired up and write at length, but to really do what is needed takes a lot more patience and persistence. It's *work*! And it's hard enough for me to sit back and look at what the people with various points of view come up with. I'll leave it to the young people with the time and energy to haunt a medical library to do the footwork. Note that we will generally assume that a clear quotation from a peer-reviewed source that is not *easily* -- i.e., on the web -- verified is properly quoted, that is part of what WP:AGF is about, but there are exceptions, and one might be a claim from an editor who is known to exaggerate and quote out of context. --Abd (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Abd - you do like to twist things to your own ends: you wrote "Clockback did set up, contrary to my advice, an attempt to edit the whole article" when in fact you stated earlier "What *I'm* waiting for is a reliably sourced edit that does not warp the overall balance of the article. I've acknowledged above that there is a problem with the article; *my* problem is that I don't have time to do the research to properly fix it myself. If matters are as you claim, Clockback, you should be able to do it" and he did it Abd. You are supposed to be polite and assume good faith but I'm dismayed that in the face of his efforts you criticise the work "because of his incompetence", If you're so good then why not meet his request and help?? Could it be that you have an agenda? Because one look at the code will show that Clockback did provide reliable sources. If he supplied an alternative article then so what if it is against your advice (a moot point) - who died and made you king?? I can't see why editors cannot comment on the detail of a draft article just as with a main article, it's only words on a page! It makes more sense to edit a draft with such contention. And I see no problem with NuclearWinner's edit but it was immediately reversed by Scuro.

There was no apparently about it, assume good faith. If you don't like Clockbacks sources then you could have raised each source and discussed, there are plenty out there but you are right about them being accesible on the net - see this one from Prof. J.Warner, the publications that cite his studies cannot be accessed if you follow the links, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. Clockback may be able to provide more if you made him believe there was any point in doing so...

Clearly effort does produce results as Abd and Scuro have bullied away all attempts at recording the truth. Write what you like in the article, which you clearly do anyway. Miamomimi (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a complex discussion, it is necessary to be able to read in order to follow it. I am, today, making my first revert, I think, on this article, of unsourced material, I've not been blocking anything. What bullying? Suggesting to a clearly inexperienced but highly opinionated editor that he make one change at a time? I addressed in detail the problems with the sources cited by Clockback. There were many, and densely addressed above. If any editor cares to address one of these, we can review it in detail.

I've told Clockback again and again that I would assist with getting appropriate material into the article, but that I could not necessarily find it myself. Since he was so certain he is right, surely he has reasons for such a strong belief, surely he is relying on reliable sources. Or not, as the case may be. Frankly, it would serve us all if he were not merely bluffing; I'm still waiting for usable edits. As I have time, I'll make some myself, but cleaning up the mess may come first. ADHD. Ever hear of Messies Anonymous? --Abd (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a code of conduct

• WP:EQ

This message is to Miamomimi and other editors who are expending time and effort to make the talk page personal. I'd strongly advise that you read Principles of Wikipedia etiquette. Further insults directed in my direction will result in warnings on your talk page followed by appropriate action. Ignorance is no longer an excuse.

In particular: assume good faith WP:FAITH, work towards agreement, argue facts, not personalities, and don't ignore questions. These points all come from the policy page.--scuro (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Scuro - warn away and in particular please wind your neck in and stop telling me what to do in such a threatening way, I've been arguing facts for some time now and did so in my previous comment. As I've already stated that you can do what you like with the article with no further intervention from me then I can't understand your pointed and personal attack. (appropriate action eh? crikey!) Please don't bother to explain; I'm done - enjoy. Miamomimi (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of being called names and I'm tired of mind readers knowing my every intention and inner id child motivation. So much text off script. Sometimes order is needed.--scuro (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"is generally considered to be a developmental disorder, largely neurological in nature"

The citations in the main ADHD article support the opening sentence above. If those citations are not satisfactory, type in Neurobiological and adhd to find a wack more. The issue has previously also been discussed in talk.--scuro (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the sources, and they didn't support the statement. They did support something just a little different. Here are the sources and how they relate to that statement. Remember, this is the introduction, the most strict standards would apply. It's not allowed to interpret sources, unless that interpretation is not debatable.

(1) nimh.nih.gov/health/publications It's a "condition." Describes a 1902 report of an alleged "genetic dysfunction" leading to some condition like ADHD. It describes diagnosis by, among others, a "behavior neurologist." One of the reasons for this would be to "rule out other possible reasons for the child’s behavior," some of which are clearly physical conditions. It notes that "Attention disorders often run in families, so there are likely to be genetic influences. Studies indicate that 25 percent of the close relatives in the families of ADHD children also have ADHD, whereas the rate is about 5 percent in the general population.6 Many studies of twins now show that a strong genetic influence exists in the disorder." That passage has a note: Faraone SV, Biederman J. Neurobiology of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 1998; 44; 951-958. After discussing the brain scan research, it says, "Although this long-term study used MRI to scan the children’s brains, the researchers stressed that MRI remains a research tool and cannot be used to diagnose ADHD in any given child. This is true for other neurological methods of evaluating the brain, such as PET and SPECT." There is no statement in this article that AHDD is "a developmental disorder, largely neurological in nature." This source is a general information article on ADHD, and doesn't address the controversy *at all*. It's a "condition," which makes no physical disease-basis claim.

(2) ninds.nih.gov/disorders "Attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurobehavioral disorder."

(3) aacap.org "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or ADHD is a common childhood illness that can be treated. It is a health condition involving biologically active substances in the brain. Studies show that ADHD may affect certain areas of the brain that allow us to solve problems, plan ahead, understand others’ actions, and control our impulses." Now, given that all central nervous system mediated behavior involves "biologically active substances in the brain" this is a very broad statement. This source is not written with precision, unlike the nimh source.

(4) pubmed This is a study of prevalence only.

Indeed, other sources may exist for "developmental disorder" and "neurological" disorder, but the four sources given don't establish that, except that one calls it a "neurobehavioral disorder." The introduction to the article should be spotlessly NPOV. The *one* source may justify calling it "neurobiological," but I don't see any need to introduce this in the introduction itself, unless this description is widespread. What is neurobehavioral? Web definition: "of or relating to the relationship between the action of the nervous system and behavior <neurobehavioral disorders such as aphasia, alexia, and childhood learning disabilities" What behavior isn't "neurobehavioral"? It appears that this word means little more than "behavioral."

"neurobehavioral disorder" ADHD -wikipedia returned 7910 ghits, "neurobehavioral condition" ADHD -wikipedia 755 ghits, "neurological disorder" ADHD -wikipedia returned 70,700 ghits, but the neurological disorder, in the first few hits, was a *different* disorder *associated* with ADHD, i.e., Tourette's, and other references at the top that called ADHD by this name were popular publications. "neurological condition" ADHD -wikipedia returned 21,900 ghits.

At this point I have come to an opinion. The most supported description I found -- I certainly did not research all possibilities -- was "neurological condition." However, there is an implication that "neurological" specifically refers to the "physical" side of the situation, as might be distinct from the "programming" and "operating conditions" of the brain, (like, "This is your brain on drugs.) "Neurobehavioral condition" is more neutral on this issue, and hence I favor it. "Neurobehavioral" reflects the wide use of "neurological," as there is a whole specialty of behavioral neurology, but does not specify the level to which this is a physical (i.e., genetic, or due to brain damage or the like) disorder, and "condition" is broader than disorder. As many have pointed out, ADHD "patients" have behavioral problems in some areas and possibly behavioral *benefits* in others. "Condition" is far more neutral language, and it's supported by wide usage, indeed, "neurological condition" was the widest.

I plan to make the edit.

--Abd (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay so Attention Deficit Hyperactivity disorder.......is not a disorder....hmmm I'm trying to follow the logic here. They called it a disorder because it's not? I can't believe that I am having this discussion or that it would take further references to change your mind Abd. Wouldn't this fall under the common sense policy?--scuro (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll add to this:

• At http://www.mental.health.wa.gov.au/one/resource/7/adhd%20policy.pdf they say in the Introduction: "ADHD is a behavioural syndrome in which symptoms of hyperactivity and/or inattention negatively effect a person’s social, academic and/or occupational functioning."

Barrylb (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

More wiki policy - reliable source guidelines

Some have questioned why their sources are not considered the best in this ongoing discussion. Here are the Wiki guidelines. WP:SOURCES

• Reliable sources

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text. --scuro (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The British Journal of Psychiatry debate citation

The citation has not been removed. Only the conclusions that were drawn from the citation. This is a debate format, it's not a scientific review for heavens sake. For controversy to exist you must have active debate between majority and minority opinion. You can't draw the conclusion of active debate in the scientific field from this link.--scuro (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast on passing by the BJP debate citation. As I read it, it is a debate between two people. "Sami Timimi is a psychiatrist not much different then Dr. Phil. He is a Dr. but is noteworthy for his social criticisms...not his research or his standing in the scientific community. He cites fringe opinion. In fact he partakes in Scientology events. "http://www.scientology-europe.org/en_US/news/2005/20051122.html

I'd guess the whole piece was a bit of brain candy for the Doctors looking for a little fluff in their journal. As a piece of social criticism it should be removed from the lead unless the topic is social criticism.--scuro (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

mention of controversy in introduction

(edit conflict with above) I've become convinced that the controversy over ADHD warrants some mention in the introduction. It should be fleshed out deeper in the article. Procedurally, it might have been better to lay out the foundation for this in the article, deeper in, in detail, *then* put this in the intro. But someone else put the reference in, with much stronger language about controversy. So I reworked it. After all this is a project involving the cooperation of editors. I came up with this.

Some view the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD as controversial, see Controversy about ADHD. In 2004, the introduction to a debate on the topic in The British Journal of Psychiatry noted, "It has been difficult to gain and maintain professional agreement on what ADHD is or what should be done about it".

The first sentence is an introduction to the second. The "some view" is a summary of the "For" argument in the debate in the source, and there are several noted authors mentioned there, justifying "some." Words that in other contexts would be "weasel words" are, in an introduction, if substantiated -- and particularly if the detail exists deeper in the article, simply a summary, what an introduction is supposed to be.

User:Scuro reverted me, I reverted it back, for the reasons detailed above. (I had incorrectly thought he had totally removed the second part, because of how his edit summary read, but, in fact, he had appended it to the previous paragraph, where it did not belong, it's not clearly connected enough.) Instead of cutting out this text, I'd suggest that Scuro, if he still doesn't like it, discuss improvement.

Note that this is a very small introduction of controversy into this article, and it refers to a reliable source that gives some good summary of the controversy. It was a source like this that I'd been asking for. There is now some *flesh* to "some". Further, "some view" here was that "some view the diagnosis as controversial." That is quite different from "some view the diagnosis as a fraud, a perversion of the medical profession, etc." There is, without any doubt, substantial controversy over various aspects of ADHD. The evidence is fairly strong that there is some genetic basis, though I have not read the critics' responses to that. (It's amazing how little meat there is in some criticism, it seems the most emotional aspects, the "wining and dining" of researchers and medical bureaucrats by the greedy drug industry, the armies of toddlers getting drenched with powerful drugs, gets the bulk of the argument.) But what this means is far from clear. The field is in flux, some claim that there are physical markers, others don't see that and state that there are no physical signs. That's controversy. That is, there is controversy that is *not* all "Psychiatrists are Satan incarnate." There is sober criticism and also recognition by those who claim physical causes that it is not proven yet. --Abd (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it's nice that you made up your mind Abd...and I may grant you the point that certain things that fall under the wide umbrella of the topic of ADHD may be controversial but I have seen the controversial flag waved so many times with regards to ADHD that I have become conditioned to be skeptical. If the diagnosis is so obviously controversial where is the beef? How many times do I have to ask for a reliable source before someone answers me? Wikipedia policy states that you should answer other editors questions. If you don't have an answer for a question you should respond, "I don't know" or "I can't find it". To ignore the question is disingenuous. Perhaps the diagnosis isn't controversial nor is the disorder itself. What then is controversial? Spell it out for us with reliable references that use the word controversy or controversial. Do you think that is too much of a demand? I can find sources that describe ECT as controversial. --scuro (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Scuro, you edit war at the drop of a hat. In any case, it's moot now, because I took the comment to heart that "controversy" wasn't mentioned in the source, so I changed it to use the exact words, even though they are essentially equivalent to controversy and most editors would agree. "diverse views," I'll acknowledge is softer -- and could be considered weasel words, on the lines of "they had a frank exchange," when they were screaming at each other. Besides, I didn't want to push 3RR, because I don't remember when I did those earlier reverts.... Did it escape your notice that I reverted quite a few introductions of this controversy thing into the article until someone finally came up with a reliable source? So why are you still demanding reliable source? It's there, you noticed it, and the only thing lacking was the specific word "controversy." I don't need the word "controversy," I do need to allow readers to understand the range of notable opinion and evidence.

Scuro, one more thing. If it is easy to edit someone's text to make it conform to policy, don't delete it. Fix it. That's collaborative. I take stuff out when it's a problem and to fix it is too much work. It wasn't hard to fix this. --Abd (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone doubts the existence of a controversy I have found news articles to back that up:

• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/experts/exist.html

A quote from an interviewee: "There is controversy about ADHD, I believe, partly because we are using a medication to treat the disorder, and people find that to be of concern."

• http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2002/s519060.htm

Title: "Controversy continues over treatment of ADHD"

• http://www.abc.net.au/health/library/stories/2003/04/24/1828304.htm

From the introduction: "Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, is one of the most controversial topics in kid's health today."

• http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21989550-5001021,00.html

Federal Opposition health spokesperson: "Given the controversy surrounding ADHD..." Barrylb (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your last citation was about the controversy of a review, not ADHD. The PBS dude talks about what he believes could be a controversy. The other citations really are not that notable. Why does not one national health organization in the world label it controversial? How about a scientific body? Zilich. So who or what group makes the minority opinion that believes that ADHD is controversial? The rags and internet sites that have bouncy girls tucked away inside?--scuro (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually in the last citation, I believe the spokesperson could be talking in general terms about ADHD, not about the review. Anyway, the citations are sufficient to demonstrate there is controversy. There may not be a lot of talk in scientific journals but that doesn't mean the controversy doesn't exist. In all the references I provided people are talking about it. Barrylb (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are two references from the scientific community:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10673829?dopt=Abstract National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

From the abstract: "ADHD and its treatment have remained controversial"

• http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/177_10_181102/hal10365_fm.html Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children: moving forward with divergent perspectives

From the introduction: "We believe that the current controversy about diagnosis and management of these children's symptoms arises from the divergent perspectives of developmentally and non-developmentally minded professionals"

Barrylb (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The first reference has some beef. It's a start. Thank you. More later.--scuro (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To Barrylb. Good luck arguing with these chaps. But if you adduced Einstein, Freud and Newton, with supporting links, to say that there was controversy about 'ADHD', you'd be told that somehow or other it didn't count. They say so, you see. Or at least one of them does. So that's settled. And you'd be reverted, so that you could either have an edit war , and be warned off for being bad, (somehow those who repeatedly revert to the original version never run into trouble for doing this, only those who wish to make changes. I'm unable to see quite why) or you have to give up. The same noble rigour, alas, is not applied to the article itself, packed as it is with unsupported or contentious assertions presented as facts, with pseudoscientific jargon, and by the use of the passive voice which is disapproved of in Wikipedia under the 'weasel words' rules. I've appealed for outside arbitration on this and I urge you to join me. I've also attempted to mark various contentious points with 'citation needed' marks, but my inadequate computer skills have produced varying results. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be quite a lot of information in a 2006 book Critical New Perspectives on ADHD [9]. I haven't fully looked through it yet, but on page 178 the chapter's author says: "it should be pointed out that in Sweden a heated debate concerning the status of the diagnosis ADHD/DAMP has been going on for many years. The debate has been polarised, with some arguing that this syndrome cannot be considered an identifiable and verifiable condition at all, while others argue that this is one of the most significant health problems of our time." I equate that with controversy. Barrylb (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In another 2007 book The Other Side of ADHD: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Exposed and Explained [10] the author says (on page 5) "there is widespread disagreement about whether it exists at all, and whether it is, in fact, a valid diagnostic category. Although its advocates are prone to describing it in certain terms, there has rarely been so much uncertainty and controversy about a diagnosis...". Barrylb (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

citations and citation requests in the intro

Are not citations and citation requests to be avoided in the intro? They should be in the main body of the article where the points are touched upon. --scuro (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)