Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/Archive 12

Emotional effects
i was wondering why this article never mentions the depressive and anxious versions of ADD or as dr Dainel Amen classifies them the eeyore and piglet types —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itshouldbereversed (talk • contribs) 20:05, May 2, 2009

If you found reliable sources they could be cited and the info on depression and anxiety features of ADHD being added.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  06:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

its in DR. Daniel Amens book Healing ADHD:The Breakthrough Program That Allows You to See and Heal the 6 Types of ADD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itshouldbereversed (talk • contribs) 19:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to cite the book, here is the cite book template. Template:Cite book-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  07:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

MCOTW
ADHD is the current medical collaboration of the week. This page has improved significantly since it was nominated but hopefully we can make further improvements.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ADHD was briefly labeled collaboration of the week (MCOTW), but "by popular demand" MCOTW has been changed to Swine flu. This must mean that ADHD is very near the top of the list and will be MCOTW soon.  It might be wise for the regulars here to clean up the reflist and to try to stay on-topic on the talk page -- to better welcome an influx of new eyes on the article.  Just sayin'. - Hordaland (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are contributors with HUGE ownership issues on this page and the sister page ADHD controversies. This has been documented by an administrator and nothing has changed. Until the process of consensus building is respected, it is a waste of time to nominate this article.--scuro (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I nominated this article as I think extra eyes from some very smart people who understand both research and science / medicine will improve and solidify the consensus of the article. POV if any will be removed and consensus will be easier to make. I do not understand why you would want to keep more eyes away from this article?-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that I have virtually been blocked from editing the page in over a year by more then one editor, you would think POV issues and page ownership issues should be dealt with first. Why bring others into a process that is not working?--scuro (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Having more people look at and contribute to the article is good. It's the opposite of hogging an article to yourself. If there are OWN problems then take it to dispute resolution rather than griping about it in topics like Medical Collaboration Of The Week where it is irrelevant please. Sifaka   talk  19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with you. Alerting other potential contributors that ownership is a major issue is the right thing to do.--scuro (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Doc James/jmh649's filing of a rfc content dispute
Make no mistake, although the content dispute may be made against a single user, the intention may well be to use a ruling in his favour, more broadly. Also be aware that James had an ownership RFC filed against him in which he requested that content be part of the RFC. That was agreed to but James chose to drop out of the mediation.--scuro (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If that should indeed be proved to be his intention, I am very sure it will not pose any kind of problem to me. The circumstances of the Rfc is on record and clearly visible to everyone. If he chooses to press the Rfc in my direction, I will simply take it from there. In case you should be in doubt, I am very capable of defending myself.


 * If you want to help, please do it in the form of sources. For example, in relation to what you state about Peter Breggin above, it could be sources to verify what you claim.


 * It is clear to me that you and Doc James is having a dispute for some reason, based on circumstances at a time before I became an editor. Personally, I refuse to spend hours on end, examining archived talk threads to form a fixed opinion in relation to that. --Sportsmand (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Scuro and Sportsmand the content RFC is NOT an attack on anyone. It is mainly to deal with the issue as I see it that Scuro denies that any group other than Scientology see ADHD as controversial regardless of the evidence provided and provides no references to support his own opinion.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also by the way I have just learned that the RFC has not been opened properly. An admin is attempting to help with current issues see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WQA#Scuro_and_editors_generally so I hope we can get thing resolved shortly.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That wasn't a content RFC. It had NOTHING to do with content or the RFC process. Oh,...and it sure felt like an attack. James, you asked specifically for a content RFC? For the record I'm stating that your contention about what I believe to be controversial about ADHD to be false. That is unless what you mean is that I believe that Scientology is the only group that believes EVERYTHING about ADHD is controversial. But I would even disagree about that too since there are a number of anti-psych groups who believe that too....and who knows other religious groups, political groups....it's a big world out there. --scuro (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Tried to resolve diagreements
I stumbled upon a reference which states that most healthcare professionals accept the validity of ADHD as a genuine disorder but significant controversies exist with regard to how it is diagnosed and its treatments or words to that effect. I have added this to the lead giving it prominant attention for the reader of this article so hopefully this will resolve the issues raised by Sportsmand and others. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  10:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it is a good clarification.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure, the esteemed gentlemen of Western Australia would be pleased by the prominent placement given to the 2004 reprint from 'Australian Family Physician'. I will just introduce to the audience the identities of said gentlemen. My answer to your hope is definately implied.


 * Moira G Sim, MBBS, FRACGP, FAChAM, is Associate Professor, Edith Cowan University, Adjunct Staff, School of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, the University of Western Australia, a general practitioner, Yokine, Western Australia, and Senior Medical Officer, the Drug and Alcohol Office of Western Australia.
 * Gary Hulse, BBSc, PhD, is Professor and Head, Unit for Research and Education in Drugs and Alcohol, School of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Western Australia.
 * Eric Khong, MBBS, GradDipPHC, FRACGP, is Medical Officer, Drug and Alcohol Office, Adjunct Senior Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Adjunct Clinical Lecturer, School of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, the University of Western Australia, and a general practitioner, Edgewater and Duncraig, Western Australia. --Sportsmand (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly suspect that Moira is not a gentleman, esteemed or otherwise. :-) - Hordaland (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My abject apologies to the esteemed Lady Moira. I think I need a gaelic refresher course ;o)--Sportsmand (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to explain how I see this source. It is a valid reference in our debate and I suppose it could serve somewhere in our complex of ADHD information. It actually shows the need to keep the proper proportions as to the prominence of our sources.

First point: Your reference is supposed to support the entire new sentence "Most healthcare providers however accept that ADHD is a genuine disorder but significant controversy surrounds how it is diagnosed and also its treatment." You seem to have "translated" this by substituing your own words for what the source really say:


 * "Most healthcare providers however accept that ADHD is a genuine disorder but.."
 * The source states "While the existence of this disorder is generally accepted"


 * "significant controversy surrounds how it is diagnosed"
 * Did this come from "debate continues in relation to aspects of assessment"?


 * "and also its treatment"
 * The source says "as well as the effectiveness and choice of treatment options and their continuation into adult life."

The source states at the beginning: "There is significant controversy surrounding attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)". I think we know that now. It also states "the existence of this disorder is generally accepted". So, by logic, the controversy is not about the ADHD diagnosis and the whole thing is moot.

In total, if I may ask: Do you see this as a proper representation of what the source actually says?

Second and more important point. This is a 2004 minor source aimed at the australian public and explicitly in the context of substance abuse. It is written by 3 professionals all working in the context of "Drugs and Alcohol". The source itself declares: "This is the fifth article in a series of case files from general practice that explore treatment issues around substance use and commonly encountered general practice presentations".

Now really, is this the kind of source that goes directly to the main section of the ADHD article? With or without original synthesis, we seem to disagree with some basic tenents of NPOV. I hope we can do better. --Sportsmand (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If I don't get an answer, I will definately revert this. --Sportsmand (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

""translated" this by substituing your own words for what the source really say"

This is what editors on wikipedia are meant to do as wikipedia prohibits copying and pasting sentences from sources. If you insist on reverting it then fine. I added it to try and make the article less biased by showing that most doctors accept the diagnosis as a valid disorder which I thought was what you wanted. I don't really see any flaws in how I interpreted the source.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  07:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering the authors and their intended audience, I agree that this is a very weak source, almost laughably so. However I also agree with LG that s/he hasn't misinterpreted the chosen bits.
 * What I really want to ask Sportsmand is something else, which I have 'felt' further up the page and which seems to be clearly stated here: [The source] also states "the existence of this disorder is generally accepted". So, by logic, the controversy is not about the ADHD diagnosis and the whole thing is moot. What whole thing is moot?  Does Sportsmand believe that any time we speak of 'ADHD controversy', we're referring only to the question of whether the diagnosis does or should exist?  IMO the controversies include at least the questions of over-diagnosing (too many kids!) and use of medication both short- and long-term.  Have I misinterpreted something? - Hordaland (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can see that the statement is not very clear and could be interpreted as you suggest. That is not the case. The aspects you mention could well be examples of where real controversy exists.
 * The "moot thing" was simply a comment to the uniformly treatment/drugrelated references LG for weeks have tried to use as counters to my basic assertion concerning the ADHD diagnosis. And yet again, s/he uses a drugrelated article as a reference to the controversy "thing". I consider it just as "moot" as all the others in relation to the diagnosis. LG has never stated whether s/he agrees to my basic assertion or not. I hope this clarifies my statement. --Sportsmand (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The main problem can probably best be shown with that you replace the word "debate" with "significant controversy". In this context I consider it original synthesis. The overall meaning of what the source states is not represented faithfully in my opinion. The sentence you created uses the words such as "however" and "but" and these qualifications are not in the original source. How you got from "generally accepted" to "Most healthcare providers however accept" is a mystery to me. Almost generally??


 * The main point I made is not related to how you represent the source. Could you please comment related to that? --Sportsmand (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

<-My main point remains unanswered. At this point however, I do not really intend to revert the sentence, as it seems to illustrate a concern more than one editor is trying to raise. At this place and in view of the ongoing "controversy" debate among the editors, a separate "citation" vs "citation" debate seems pointless. Not that I wouldn't clearly appreciate editor Literaturegeeks' comments here, but in addition and too be clear, I suspect that the present mention of controversy, at this place in this kind of article may in its current form represent undue weight. I do not really want to argue this viewpoint here at the moment. The underlying and clarifying debate concerning validity and placement of sources is underway in this section Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies. My questions to editor Literaturegeek concerning sources will be proceded in there. --Sportsmand (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

ADD?
There is no article for Attention Deficit Disorder (Without hyperactivity). It is difficult to sort through the ADHD-specific information. 12.239.57.101 (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ADHD predominantly inattentive is ADD--Unionhawk Talk 21:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need to sort through it; it (almost) all applies. I'm not a doctor, but I suspect that you can ignore any information explicitly and only about uncontrollably running around the classroom; otherwise, every other bit of information about ADHD will apply to those with ADD (or ADD predominately inattentive, or ADD without hyperactivity.) We should have a redirect from Attention Deficit Disorder Without Hyperactivity to here, though. (Unsigned comment by OtterSmith, 7 May 2009)


 * If you could spare a few minutes to describe what the difficulty was I would really appreciate it. Did you find the information you were looking for? We have an ongoing debate among the regular editors concerning the structure of our ADHD-articles, and your experience could be useful input in this debate. --Sportsmand (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

coatrack and undue weight issues
Debate about the whole controversies article also has ramifications here. There is a fair bit of mention of controversies in this article and the same questions are relevant:
 * 1) What is the controversy?
 * 2) What is the majority and minority viewpoint about the controversy?
 * 3) Have both viewpoints been stated clearly with due weight according to wiki standards?

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

While this article is of higher quality then the controversies article, I believe there are still coatrack( WP:COATRACK ) issues, with cherry picking of sources ( WP:CHERRY ) Wiki states, "Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias....Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader".

To repeat from what was said on the controversies page, it is not at all clear what the overreaching controversy is, if in fact there is one, and who holds minority and majority viewpoint. What should really be done is that the article should be tagged POV until this sorted out. The action is warranted because of the very slow pace of consensus building.--scuro (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of people out there that think ADHD does not exist, and that it's just the result of bad parenting. Besides, you pretty much only cited one official policy. The rest are essays, and are more guidelines than actual rules. (In fact, per WP:IAR, so are the policies)--Unionhawk Talk 12:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you believe the ADHD deniers form a majority, minority, or fringe opinion? Can we not at least sort out and identify the different positions as wikipedia asks us to do?--scuro (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know... 50-50-ish? I personally have ADHD, and know that these people are wrong, but that's another issue. That's why this is flagged controversial. Some people don't think it exists, the rest of people either have it or have to live with someone who has it.--Unionhawk Talk 16:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorting them out is going to be OR, and extremely difficult OR as well. There are multiple controversies, with multiple shades within each. Those who totally deny the existance of ADHD, claiming that it's only willful misbehavior, I'd label both an extreme minority, and fringe; I'll guess that they are at most 0.1% of those having an opinion. htom (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * mmm.... I'm not so sure. (I have ADHD.) I think the idea that ADHD is an excuse for bad behavior is not uncommon. It's actually not necessary to sort out what's fringe, for the way that due weight is determined is through the weight of reliable sources, with particular attention paid to peer-reviewed academic sources. Wherever a view is substantially controversial though, even if it is expressed in reliable source, it should be attributed. --Abd (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't clear. There are people who claim that ALL instances of ADHD/ADD behavior flaws are really conscious, willful misbehavior. We (I have ADD, too) intend our failures. htom (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible new source (here or at controversies)
Press release: Treating Sleep Disorders May Ease ADHD Symptoms : Team suggests screening spares patients lifetime of problems. - Hordaland (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Pathopysiology criticism: Concerns about undue weight, beyond scope of sources
This section is rather long and I'm not sure the objections to neuroimaging brought up here are disputed significantly by the mainstream medical community considering the length of this section. I don't have sources to support this since it's an off the cuff observation I've made. Something else that bothers me more is that the criticism section talks about neuroimaging in general, but in reality the sources for the criticism section only apply to certain types of neuroimaging studies. Specifically those reviews by Leo and Cohen only look at the brain size studies, not the glucose metabolism ones, dopamine and related distribution/reuptake analysis, blood flow, genetic analysis, etc. Therefore they are being used beyond their intended scope because the criticism section wording implies that the results are applicable to all the different types of neuroimaging studies rather than brain size studies only. There is pretty much one source used in the pathophysiology section which is potentially within the scope of the criticism and that's "Brain Matures a Few Years Late in ADHD, But Follows Normal Pattern," however that source is more recent (2007) than the latest Leo and Cohen review used as a sources (2003 and 2004) and uses different methodology than previous studies Leo and Cohen looked at (new image analysis technique allowed the researchers to pinpoint the thickening and thinning of thousands of cortex sites in hundreds of children and teens, with and without the disorder). That means that none of the criticism of neuroimaging is directly relevant to any of the studies used in the pathophysiology section. I have also noticed that some quotes from the Leo and Cohen papers could be construed as being more general, but that would be taking them out of context. Currently the criticism section is misleading because it seems to imply that the criticism is applicable to the sources used in the pathophysiology section. This section needs to be put into proper scope: the criticism is about brain size studies only. This section also needs to find some new sources that are directly relevant and preferably cover some of the content or studies/reviews used as sources in the pathophysiology section. If such sources can't be found, I would rather delete the section since it fails to be relevant criticism to any of the content or sources for the content in the pathophysiology section. I tagged the section with an n-NPOV tag mostly because I couldn't find a over-generalizing source scope section-only tag. If there is a more relevant tag, please replace it with the one I put there. Sifaka  talk  15:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section is too big and the article itself is actually getting too big. I wonder should a seperate article page be created for the neuroimaging research and then just a short paragraph or two left on this article with a see also or main article link above it? I have reworded a sentence to clarify that the only dispute is with regard to the brain volume size. I think that the criticism section is still relevant though as it is an important fact brain volume size and if studies were flawed then this should be noted in the article. I will try and find newer sources.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  08:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Another reason it is relevant is because stimulants slow down the rate of growth as well. Maybe we can shorten the criticism paragraph and add it after the brain volume paragraph? I am sure that we will be able to work out a compromise and sort out neutrality.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  09:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is brain volume, itself, influenced by stimulants (or other drugs), and is there a correlation between brain volume and ADHD (or other neuro-whatever contitions?) Are short or slim people more likely to be ADHD? htom (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Lots of drugs influence brain volume if used chronically some mildly, some severely. Alcohol is probably the worst drug for shrinking the brain but as we know is not prescribed. I have seen papers on prescription sedative hypnotics, anticonvulsants, antipsychotics being linked to brain shrinkage. Whether amphetamine based stimulants cause brain shrinkage they may very well do. There is controversy in the literature over whether ADHD itself or stimulants cause the brain shrinkage.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  08:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the separate section and vacuum packed it into two sentences. Perhaps a bit drastic and bold, but I'm happy because it still gets the main point across without overwhelming the rest of the section and it gets rid of the undue weight, irrelevancy, and scope of the source problem while giving some idea of who is debating the issues. Sifaka  talk  04:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough but I still think the section is too large especially as the pathophysiology is not conclusive. I think that it still needs shortened or else an article created on the pathophysiology of ADHD or else merge some of it into this article low arousal theory.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  10:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspect image
The image to the right, present in this article as of today, is suspect. Why does it show glucose being metabolized outside the brain? It appears to me like some guy turned a knob to turn up the contrast and there are all these artifacts, which in turn makes the in-brain pixels suspect. The link to the source on the image page is to a "Page Not Found" page. Tempshill (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also issues about copyright. It is published in the NEJM and i am unable to find it one the NIMH site.

Therefore removed

-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

external links bloated?
Are there not too many external links? Also, the controversy links, wouldn't they be more appropriate on the controversy article?--scuro (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to prune this section. I see no objection.--scuro (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have pruned the section. Thanks for pointing that out.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  11:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Divide Article into More Shorter articles? Or move info to the existing side-articles.
The article is (as of 18:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)) 99KB long (and therefore, should be shortened). I can already see that a lot of side-articles have already branched off of this one. Should we split this into more articles, or move some of the information to the existing articles, and leave just a summary here?--Unionhawk Talk 18:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the first section that should be split off into its own page should be the pathophysiology section. It is too large.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  09:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess we could spit of the history section. Other than that there is not much more that could be split off.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

removing material because the section is too "long"
Can we all agree that we shouldn't eliminate material solely on the basis that a section is to "long"? There are many options here and what is desperately needed is a consensus approach. Seek consensus in talk to find solutions. Dividing articles into new articles is one solution like the controversy section.

This section [] has been removed twice because it is too long and is missing a citation. What it needs is a citation tag.--scuro (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, the article is 99KB long as it is. We can cut some things out and have them in their own seperate article, leaving a summary with a tag. If you want to add more information on sections that already have a main tag, add it to the main article mentioned. Guidenines at WP:SPLIT say that at 100KB and above, you should probably split it. Although there's not a size limit, but as it is, it may take a few minutes to load for dial up customers. Right now, it is too long, and you're pretty much the only one who disagrees.--Unionhawk Talk 11:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What I disagree about is "poofing" material out of existence. Disappearing material, with lamest of excuses that an article is too long, and also doing this with no discussion in talk is wrong. What I stated is that there are many options BUT seek consensus first before you toss stuff in the trash. Now do you think I am the only one who thinks this?...and even if I am do think that matters a hoot?--scuro (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Calm down. It's still in the history either way. I think I've mentioned WP:BOLD before. If it's unsourced, at this point, it has to go somewhere. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collective of information, so it's not neccecary to include everything. GA class would be awesome, but that doesn't require that we cover every last detail.--Unionhawk Talk 14:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am calm, when I use bold it's because a point hasn't sunk in after repeated postings. I'm bringing that point to your immediate attention. Who makes you the singular judge of what information is "everything" and can be eliminated off the page without consensus, and what information is important? Don't just do what you want and justify it in the end. I've reverted the deletion and it's been reverted back. At this point I am stating that this is wrong and there is no consensus on this issue. The information doesn't have to immediately go anywhere. One solution is that the citation tag be placed on it, and then after an acceptable period of time, if no one has responded, it could be removed. Is this not acceptable?--scuro (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, we could remove things, and if people legitimately think it should have been included, then they can revert and discuss, instead of you reverting every time an edit is made without "seeking consensus" (asking permission) on the talk page. We don't need to file a RFC every time an edit is made.--Unionhawk Talk 16:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Union, I think that the history section Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder and the pathophysiology section Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder should be considered for their own seperate articles with a short summary left on this page. They are far too big for this article I think. If they are shortened then we will end up with an article of around 80 kbs or less. Any opinions?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * all right, I added a Split section tag to those sections.--Unionhawk Talk 18:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unionhawk, why...I do think that the multiple sections of information deleted by LG without talk, should be "legitimtely be included". Why else would I revert? Now where did you ever get the notion in your head that I'm "reverting every time and edit is made"?!?? That is really out in left field. And on those very few times that I do revert, that I do so, "without seeking consensus??? By starting this thread I pointed out an obvious problem and sought consensus to rectify it.


 * Back to the task at hand, I offered a solution on my last point, do you have an opinion? One solution is that the citation tag be placed on it, and then after an acceptable period of time, if no one has responded, it could be removed. Is this not acceptable?--scuro (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder Scuro if you are only here to disrupt wikipedia or run down other editors that you don't like. You seem to just want to wear people down. The article was over 100 kb in size. Poorly cited or uncited data should not be in the article. I simply moved the history data of adult ADHD to the main adult adhd article as people seemed to think it was notable albeit uncited.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  19:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am in support splitting. I think from above section doc james would also be in favour of splitting the history section.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  19:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am against splitting off the pathophysiology section even though it is long because there isn't quite enough content to make a full article unless it is elaborated on. Also, having a lot of separate articles makes it more difficult to navigate the topic and make sure the various articles are in agreement with one another. I might switch sides if it becomes much longer or someone thinks they can elaborate on the information, but I haven't seen anyone besides litgeek (and maybe me) interested in adding new content lately so I don't think that making it a new article will suddenly free up some editor's previously-suppressed-by-length-of-section desire to add new content. I weakly support splitting off the history section, since that is getting up there in length and there is enough info for a decent full article, but again having lots of sub articles makes it harder to navigate and ensure that the content on one page agrees with the content on another. Sifaka  talk  20:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "I am beginning to wonder Scuro if you are only here to disrupt wikipedia or run down other editors that you don't like. You seem to just want to wear people down....--Literaturegeek" Literaturegeek, are you a newbie. It is wrong to take potshots at people in talk. Wikipedia asks us to focus on content and not the contributors, and to be civil. Continue with this sort of behaviour and action will be taken. You have been warned several times.--scuro (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As have you. Now will both of you just drop it? Honestly...
 * However, I do agree with LG here; I think edit summaries are sufficient.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 03:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, I'm ending this "must seek consensus on talk" argument once and for all; reading some previous comments that I somehow missed, I have decided to take that up at the village pump. I'm done with this endless battle.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 03:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unionhawk I would strongly support your move to bring this to the village pump.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's nuts that we can't seek consensus here but have no objections to it being brought to the village pump.--scuro (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(←)Would you rather I brought it to RFC? I can do that, if you would like.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

NICE
The complete NICE guideline is now out. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/ADHDFullGuideline.pdf -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * From page 518 "The Guideline Development Group (GDG) acknowledged at the outset that the use ofthe diagnosis of ADHD has been the subject of considerable controversy and debate"

Very NICE, are you going to cite it?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fell free. There is lots here for everyone.  They even included a section on criticisms at the very end.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What you quote speaks in the past tense. I don't disagree with that statement.--scuro (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverted "Learning Disabilities"
I just removed the term "Learning Disabilities" from this page. I will admit upfront that I have both first hand experience with "learning disabilities" AND a strong opinion on this. Therefore, I'm biased. First, I was diagnosed as "learning disabled" and attended a school for the learning disabled for all elementary straight up through 7th grade. As someone who's actually "been there", I'll tell you that "Learning Disabled" or "Learning disability" is a bullshit term. It's a convenient label for teachers to lay on kids that actually learn by doing, not just listening and therefore don't fit the normal classroom mold. Based on my experience (1st hand) the term is bullshit and needs to not be here.

I understand wiki is about consensus, so, I will not pull that phrase out if it gets put back in. Just an explanation &mdash; KoshNaluboutes, NalubotesAeria gloris, Aeria gloris 16:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your removal. Despite your personal experience with the matter, the information comes straight from the reference. --Onorem♠Dil 17:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point of view and I can see your reasoning and opposition to the term but unfortunately we can't change how medicine or psychiatry categorises dare I say "impairments" or "differences". So I have to agree with Onorem.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

wiki basics, be civil/focus on content/seek consensus - can we follow these guidelines?
Behaviour such as indirectly speaking ill of others, not answering questions, and not focusing on content should be avoided. I've seen this behaviour recently on others talk pages, the talk page, and also in edit summaries. Can we please stop?--scuro (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Two problems here:
 * WP:BURO
 * Consensus seeking takes speaking and listening, and right now, all you're doing is speaking.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 04:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Auto archiving
Hello Guys

I just added auto archiving to this talkpage, I saw this article mentioned at ANI and thought that I'd might try to have a positive influence on it but then when I started viewing this talkpage it was simply too large for me to really grasp what is going on with the article. I think that auto archiving is something that we can all agree on here but if anyone has any objections then please let me know.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I fail with autoarchiving (I got it figured out on my talk page, but that big notice is not good for article talk pages...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was reading the docs on the two auto-archivers and am glad that someone else has relieved me of further attempts at understanding those. htom (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bot is working and nobody got angry with me, beautiful.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Switching Talk:DreamHost back to 45 days, since you seem to feel that's sufficient for a much more contentious talkpage...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

removing social construct theory of ADHD
This theory denies that ADHD exists. It is fringe opinion and belongs on the controversies page.--scuro (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Many people believe this.  Cheers.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Many people believe that ADHD doesn't exist? Can you be more specific, say...people outside of the western world? Don't forget WP:UNDUE. If this is a minority opinion there will be "prominent adherents" (eminent; distinguished above others) of this theory. Who do you have in mind?--scuro (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That is cited to a publication by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, a high quality secondary source. Do you have a secondary source to dispute this scuro?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  08:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Using your own citation, NICE stated this about ADHD on page 138. "ADHD is a valid clinical condition that can be distinguished from coexisting conditions and the normal spectrum". and this on page 133, "The evidence presented at the consensus conference indicated that there was a high degree of unanimity about there being a group of people who could be seen as having distinct and impairing difficulties and who should trigger the use of this guideline". So NICE believes that the disorder is FAKE but also believes it is a clinical condition for which the guideline expounds on how to treat the disorder is written? Please provide such evidence, I'd like to see that. Also provide prominent adherents of the "denier" viewpoint as requested earlier. Otherwise the section should be immediately removed.--scuro (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes NICE conclude that but also acknowledge that the disorder has a number of controversies. Insomnia is a valid disorder but its pharmacological treatment and over-diagnosis is controversial. I have been for the past number of days adding more and more data on the controversies of ADHD as you have requested. I will continue to expand on controversies sections with more citations as you requested. Please be patient.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No one is disagreeing that there are no controversies. I was the one who wrote the section on giving toddlers stimulants. There are controversies and there are fringe viewpoints. That all needs to get sorted out. Adding more controversies doesn't prove that the disorder is FAKE. You may simply make the controversy article more of a coatrack then it already is which is a bad thing. Quality is more important then quantity.


 * Now no one has stated who the "prominent adherents" of the SC theory is. No one has shown where the NICE document sees the SC theory as a viable minority theory that explains ADHD. I'll be posting a POV tag on the section shortly. I do want to consensus on this issue but lets please stay on topic and answer each others questions.--scuro (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources used are mostly good quality secondary sources. Please provide sources for your view point.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  09:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * LG, I used your own source and sifted through 500 plus pages to post two quotes to demonstrate that your source didn't state what you said it did. I'm glad that you have found many sources for the article but simply finding lots of sources, doesn't give you a "get out of jail" blanket protection for your VP. Contributors have a right to question if ANY material belongs on a page, and the threshold of it's inclusion often doesn't require super-duper outside counter citations that best the citations on the page. We are trying to determine is something is fringe, not if it is majority/minority viewpoint. The support for my reasoning comes from Wikipolicy which was cited. Besides, if something is fringe opinion/fringe source, it may very well not have any citable good sources discussing that topic.


 * In consensus building, we seek the middle ground, answer questions, and we consent when our position is very weak. Page ownership is all about never compromising and protecting one version on the page. I've asked two questions and they are still unanswered. User:Scuro|scuro]] (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly it is not my source and not my edit. The reference says that there is considerable controversy surrounding ADHD and devotes a section discussing the controversies. The source also summarises the controversies as saying that some question whether ADHD exists. It is a National Institute for Clinical Excellence national report. Please quit trying to use your POV to trump a NICE national high quality source. Please provide peer reviewed sources for your position.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  16:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

LG...LG...I've taken the trouble to point out specific sections of the guidelines that counters what you state. I've cut and pasted these passages and also provided page numbers. I've also taken the trouble to cut and paste three specific passages on wiki policy and fringe viewpoint. Now granted the guideline does discuss controversy but at no point does it question the existence of ADHD. As a guideline it indicates what the best methods of treatment are. They did research on this so that the guideline would be informed. If they thought ADHD was FAKE why would they do that? Anyways the ball is in Doc James court and he refuses to play ball. These questions have been asked and no one is answering:
 * 1) who are the "prominent adherents" of the SC theory?
 * 2) where in the NICE document does it state that the SC theory is a viable minority theory that explains ADHD?

If you can't answer then the citation means nothing with regards to SC and SC certainly looks to be a clear cut case of a fringe theory.--scuro (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, that's actually, if not still now, at the very least in the past the dominant theory. "prominent adherents" include scientologists, and people who don't have ADHD/don't have to live with someone with ADHD. Just look in the talk page/talk archives/past vandalism on this page alone! How many (→Replaced content with "FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE!!!!! ADHD DOESN"T EXIST!!!") s have we gotten? a lot.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 03:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added four references that verify the existence of SC theory. Here is the page in the NICE guidelines:   Ignoring those who have views that are different from that of pro pharma / pro ADHD by the way does not make these people not exist.  Thankfully wikipedia does not have a memory hole.  Unionhawk's comment is well put.  People beleive these alternative views which is exactly why we have people coming here a replacing the entire page with the words FAKE.  It makes one think that maybe ADHD is just a bit controversial. :-) -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence the controversial tag at the top of the talk page.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 03:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that the social construct theory exists. I think I helped write the original article. I am not asking that wikipedia exclude this viewpoint. Again, I wouldn't have help write the article if I believed that. What I am asking is if this theory is fringe theory. If it is, it doesn't belong on this page but rather the controversies page. NICE, by the way doesn't make reference to the specific theory which believes that ADHD doesn't exist. It states, "is that the acceptable thresholds for impairment are partly driven by the contemporary societal view of what is an acceptable level of deviation from the norm". That is a far cry from what the SC theory states.--scuro (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(←)Um... wtf? You aren't asking to have it removed? Isn't what this started as? Removing that viewpoint? I'm so confused now...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As per usual scuro please provide a citation saying that it is fringe for your arguements. At present it is reliably cited.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am questioning if it should be removed from this article...not from all of wikipedia. LG, if a theory has little traction, there will be not be reliable secondary sources passing judgement on it.--scuro (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm no expert, but, I think 14,500 Google Scholar results for Social construct theory of ADHD is evidence enough. Are they right? IMHO, no. But, do they exist, yes. Results--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 04:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I did a little google scholar search myself. I tried ghosts and got 459,000 results, ESP got over a million. Do you really believe that google scholar search results should be the yardstick used by wikipedia to determine if a theory is fringe or not?--scuro (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Page ownership continues to be alive and well on the ADHD pages
The Social Construct Theory of ADHD believes that ADHD is FAKE. I've pointed out that this is a fringe theory [] and removed the section. No one made the case why this is not a fringe theory yet the section was reverted back. I put a POV tag on the section. The tag was removed. Diff here -> [] That tag specifically states not to remove it till the conflict is resolved. The might is right approach is very uncivil and has been alive and well on this page now for over a year.--scuro (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed a POV tag (not the one cited above) because that tag implies that you're going to discuss it, which I did not see an actual discussion at the time. Social construct theory, on Google Scholar, has over 14,000 results, so is by no means a small time theory. It may be wrong, but it is out there in the mainstream. Trust me: about 50% of adults I know w/o children with ADHD think it's just bad parenting. Every sentence in that section has a reference, so, I think fringe is out. Wrong, maybe, but fringe, no.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 03:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Unionhawk. I did not write any of this info on SC just found references for it. We are not here to determine the truth but to reflect what is out there in the published literature. No one else has come forwards with a definitive cause of ADHD. Therefore until someone does many theories will abound.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The diff above shows that Doc James removed the POV tag but Unionhawk, you are welcome to add it back on. I assume that you mean that you missed the thread called "removing social construct theory of ADHD". If you take a look now you will see that I have made a very good case why the material should be removed. Even if you disagree with my opinion you will notice that I have asked two very important questions that continue to go unanswered. The POV tag states not to remove it until the conflict is resolved. Clearly the ball is in Doc James court so I see absolutely no reason why the tag should be removed. The most important question to determine if a theory is not a fringe theory is to name the "prominent adherents" of the theory.--scuro (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have previous to these comments added four references to books and the peer reviewed literature to support these passages. I have also added the name of one of the most well known adherents who has extensively published on the topic.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have 2 cents to add here; take it or leave it. Scuro says "The most important question to determine if a theory is not a fringe theory is to name the "prominent adherents" of the theory."  I don't think that that is necessarily so.  We've made very plain that the controversies rage not just among "experts", researchers, medical people etc., but also in the media and among the public.  Since a fair proportion of the public, and much reporting in the media, claim that ADHD is doubtful or even fake, one doesn't need a prominent adherent to be able to say that an opinion is not fringe. - Hordaland (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Jmh...I must of missed where you added the name. Whom is it? Now for references, is there any references that state that the viewpoint that ADHD is fabricated, is widely held by the public? References simply demonstrating that the theory exists proves nothing with regard to fringe viewpoint.--scuro (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here we go: right from WP:FRINGE: "Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories like the Face on Mars can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia - as notable popular phenomena."--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 15:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide citations for your viewpoint scuro. At present it is reliably cited with several citations. Your POV does not trump reliable sources. Thank you.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I believe that the SC theory belongs on Wikipedia, I think that I probably wrote the original article using content from the Controversies article. What I question is if the SC theory belongs on the main ADHD page. Doc James, did you add Thomas Szasz as a proponent of this theory on the main article? Did not TS form the CCHR with Scientology and state this about the CCHR? ''“We should all honor CCHR because it is really the organization that for the first time in human history has organized a politically, socially, internationally significant voice to combat psychiatry. This has never been done in human history before.”'' [] Is he not seen as an anti-psychiatry critic? Wouldn't anti-psychiatry viewpoints be fringe viewpoint with regards to causes of ADHD. They don't believe ADHD exists.--scuro (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um... no. They are wrong viewpoints, sure, but, SC theory is pretty much the most common theory, the next begin too much sugar or something like that (which is also incorrect).--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 03:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * U-H...the tone please. Lets be civil. Of the "alternative" theories, the Hunter/Farmer theory has the most traction. If you mention it in conversation, some people would recognize the name. No one would recognize the SC name. If we are taking causes of ADHD, I would postulate that none of these theories would have real acceptance in the Scientific and Medical communities. Can we agree on this?--scuro (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Explain to me how I was being uncivil...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 14:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll second that request, if I may. Scuro suggests that Unionhawk is being uncivil, presumably in the comment just above (the one which starts: Um... no.).  No matter how many times I read that comment, I can't find anything uncivil about it.  - Hordaland (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thirding the request; uncivility is very different than "not agreeing". htom (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone can disagree with someone's viewpoint. Responses such as " wtf?" and "um..no" are not neutral, they are addressing the contributor directly. We are to focus on content not the contributor.--scuro (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. WTF is one I don't use, being perhaps of "the old school", and I don't see why you brought it up as it wasn't used here.  Starting a sentence with Um... no, is informal; it's like the way one speaks.  And to me it doesn't say anything at all about one person's attitude toward another.   --Hordaland (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(←)Just ignore him... Would it make you happy if I cut the word "um" out of my vocabulary? I mean, seriously...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)