Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/Archive 22

Evolution Section
Ok, after looking taking some time to think about the subject, and finding (and translating) the full text of the Cardo paper (which had conclusions similar to the Taylor & Williams paper), I decided to rewrite some portions of the evolution section to clarify the findings. Specifically to clarify two aspects mentioned in both papers:

1. The hypothesis that some individual traits associated with ADHD may have been beneficial, but when these traits combine as seen in ADHD, it becomes detrimental, producing "maladaptive spandrels" (the term was mentioned in the Taylor & Williams paper, but it appears that they may have been quoting the term from yet another paper).

2. The hypothesis that society as a whole may benefit from having a small number of individuals engaging in unpredictable or impulsive behavior, even though this behavior may be detrimental to the individuals themselves.

Both of these hypotheses are mentioned in both the Williams & Taylor paper and the Cardo paper. Point #1 had previously lacked the important qualifier regarding the difference between individual traits vs ADHD in terms of advantages and disadvantages (and hopefully the "maladaptive spandrel" term makes the concept clearer), and point #2 had previously been mentioned but failed to distinguish between benefit to society vs detriment to individual, which is a major point of both papers.

I also removed the Hartmann reference completely. It was fringe. The one argument in favor of retaining it was that a lot of people have read the popular book, perhaps. On the other hand, a PubMed search for "ADHD Hunter Gatherer" returned exactly two articles, one was a 20 year old paper on "neuroethics", and the other was a nutritional article that claimed that changes in diet from hunter-gatherer days were the cause of ADHD, autism, and 80% all reproductive hazards. Not exactly a wealth of information to support the hypothesis. Without any published information outside of Hartmann's own book, the hypothesis can probably be considered not only fringe, but also potentially non-notable. The actual papers on the evolution of ADHD made no reference to Hartmann and did not support his hypothesis at all except for containing the words "evolution" and "ADHD".

I have left the fringe tag as it stands only because I do not know for certain that Hartmann was the sole reason for placing the tag. I'm also not sure what to do with the studies mentioned that examined the DRD4 gene: on the one hand, the gene is linked to ADHD by a large number of reputable sources and this link appears to be widely accepted, but on the other hand it is not clear that the studies themselves were looking at ADHD specifically, or how explain more clearly how they fit into the picture.Hyperion35 (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hunter-farmer theory is not WP:FRINGE; see this link for notability in academic books, over 1,000 results. If it is FRINGE then by the definition of WP:FRINGE, the majority of those academic books should 'rubbish' or debunk the hunter-farmer term, which they do not, they actually 'support it' and just use the term as a simplification of natural selection of one line of evolution research. Sure hunter-gather or hunter-farmer is not a scientific term and thus you would not expect to see it in hard science research papers but academics will and do widely use hunter/farmer in academic books geared towards the public and even parts of the scientific community. As in the above section, I do not dispute that ADHD is detrimental in many respects for the risk taking ADHDer; by definition having risk taking traits involves hazards and risks and I do not dispute this.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  01:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, but if it's a hypothesis that has never been formally published in peer-review literature, if it's a hypothesis that is barely even discussed in the peer-reviewed published research, then it would still resemble pseudoscience. There are faux-academic creationist books out there as well.  I think the question is what quality of evidence exists to support the hypoothesis compared to the rest of this page, where most of the statements are backed by comprehensive reviews and published statements from major medical societies.  The other question is how widely is this hypothesis accepted within the field.  I'll also note that many of those books in the search that you listed have titles like "ADHD Drug-Free: Natural Alternatives" and "Nature's Ritalin for the Marathon Mind".  So, ah, when I ask how well-accepted it is within the community, I mean the legitimate research community and not the so-called "alternative medicine" community, because some of those books do actually sound rather fringe (no, seriously, consider titles advocating drug-free treatment in the context that medication is suggested as a necessary treatment component by NIH, NHS, APA, AMA, AAP, AACAP, and many other professional medical societies, so that rigjt there should be an indication that if the advocates for the hypothesis are publishing books that flat out contradict the statements made by the major medical societies, that is possibly a clue that they might be fringe).


 * But my main point is this: if the hunter-gatherer hypothesis does not have anything near the level of published, peer-reviewed literature as the other parts of this page, and if the bypothesis itself has never been formally published, how on exactly are we supposed to weigh it against the massove amount of published evidence used for every other claim and assign it due weight? How are we to evaluate its acceptance by the scientific community when there is no pu lished evidence that it is accepted.  There is no published research.  At all.  It is a pop-sci idea, but that doesn't make it scientific.  I get that you like Hartmann's hypothesis, but I would like to hold it to the same standard of evidence of everything else on this page.  Go put it up on the Controversies page since evidence, undue weight, NPOV, and reputable sourcing apparently dln't apply there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperion35 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you will get some alternative type books indexed by google books; you would likely also get some alternative books in search results if you included ADHD and Ritalin or any other number of possible searches. Google indexes a range of books from alternative books through to hard neuroscience type books. I am okay with the hunter-gatherer hypothesis being excluded from being discussed in this article although I feel a 'see also' link should remain. I actually prefer the hard science over the hunter-gatherer hypothesis/explanation as I can understand it; I don't write for my own benefit though but for readers of the article. As I stated above, the hunter-gatherer is aimed at children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD as a simplification and explaination of natural selection/evolutionary concepts in relation to ADHD as well as to make it easier for them to accept having a 'label' or 'disorder'. How do you feel about agreeing to exclude the hunter-gatherer hypothesis from this article but leaving a see also link for the small number of readers who may want to read about it?--  MrADHD  |  T@1k?  16:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Diet and ADHD
A new review Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Signs and Symptoms section
This section could be worded better.

The bulleted lists of symptoms are a bit awkward, because they don't phrase the symptoms as nouns. For example, currently it says things like:

"Symptoms may include ..." "... Talk nonstop"

It would be better if it was phrased like this:

"Symptoms may include ..." "... Nonstop talking"

Actually, though, the lists of symptoms seem overly specific anyway, referencing things like "seats" and "story time." It might be better if the symptoms were described in more general terms, rather than school-specific ones like these.

Also, in that section, the following sentence is, for lack of a better word, a mess:

"Other symptoms that ADHD include problems for effected people with social skills and ADHD people also tend to have poorer handwriting compared to their peers.[32]"

--Juggler37 (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

PerfectEdit (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Not to be contrary but ADHD is a neurological condition, which can be comorbid with some psychological/psychiatric conditions. Not all individuals with ADHD have behavioural problems. ADHD individuals have issues with low adrenaline which forces their sympathetic nervous system to kick in, and fill the need, however it's use is only ever meant to be temporary and it's chemical regulation becomes impaired, so those with ADHD may seem to be on the go a lot of the time and the bodies prolonged use of this system can cause adrenal fatigue seen as lethargy. Also some individuals have issues with working memory which can further cause problems especially in the absence of executive functioning skills. It should be noted that ADHD has no bearing on IQ, but a clear impact for some individuals to demonstrate their intellect using common marking tools i.e providing written work, mainly due to issues with time management, lethargy and EF skill application.

Article needs non-fringe alternative treatments section
http://www.logan.edu/mm/files/LRC/Senior-Research/2009-Aug-02.pdf

Is one simple survey of non-drug treatments summarizing some results. Among them biofeedback, exercise, and DHA levels in diet. Other summaries and research exist as well, obviously.

As well, the view that the disorder is in the methods of adults, and not in the constitution of the people affected, might also be included. The word "focus" is also often used in literature but tends to be undefined. The alternate view suggests that in children, their needs are not being met by reason of the assembly-line regimentation of school, and such phenomena as the failure of caregivers to self-label as "boring," tending to project social mis-match solely as problem of the children. Mydogtrouble (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with the need for this section! And by the way, and I know it's off topic, but in the child psychiatric region where I work, they are about to start a research project with biofeedback. Preliminary results are that it works just as well as meds, without the side effects.  Lova Falk     talk   17:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional treatment (that is, in addition to drugs, or with drugs, or without), rather than alternative, might be more useful. I've seen too much "alternative treatment" that begins with denial and goes downhill from there. I did fine with exercise (running, primarily) for a decade or two, but twenty miles a day was hard to maintain. What would have been, looking back, most useful would have been proper diagnosis and then social skills training. htom (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Positive traits
Something that has bothered me for a long time is the pure negative tone about ADHD people on this article. There are lots of positive traits to ADHD (and lots of reliable sources to source such facts). This article focuses completely on ADHD being a negative pathology and something of a disease and demonises ADHD people unfairly. I think that there should be a section discussing positive aspects of ADHD. Given that ADD is a controversial topic, where views and opinions differ, I thought I would ask here for people's thoughts first?-- Mr ADHD |  T@1k?  01:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article mentions the disadvantages of ADHD because they are many and significant, including high rates of teenage pregnancy, road accidents, lower life expectancy, lower educational attainment and poverty. Most people with ADHD have other mental disorders. The rates of substance abuse and addiction are very high, as are the incidence of personality disorders, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, (leading to high rates of criminal convictions and imprisonment), mood disorders and anxiety disorders. If you can find reliable sources that state there are advantages, add this to to the article. There are some celebrities with ADHD for whom their condition helps them in that it contibutes to their prominent, energetic, fast-talking, lively personality. Jim Carrey, Will Smith and Russell Brand are examples of this, hence there are advantages for some ADHD people, although it seems to be unusual for the advantages to outweigh the disadvantages. 188.29.143.100 (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can dig up recent secondary sources I would have no problem with including this. I have read similar comments regarding Autism. Some see it as a different way of being rather than a disease/disorder. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that you have somewhat misinterpreted my post anon 188.29.x.x. I was not complaining about the fact that there are large number of disadvantages to ADHD mentioned in the article. I largely agree with all of what you have written regarding ADHD being associated with a range of disadvantages. My issue is that there should be a section for some positive attributes to be described. It is the looking at ADHD from the point of view that there is nothing positive about it in any form that I think is not right. I have found a couple of sources, e.g. and  but will look out more and hopefully in a few days or so get something written up and see what people think.-- Mr ADHD  |  T@1k?  22:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure there are many advantages to autism, in the wild; in society maybe mild forms of autism their ability to excel to a very very high degree in specific area(s), eg Bill Gates with his development of microsoft is an advantage. I suppose autistics are much less prone to substance abuse and other forms of antisocial behaviour than ADHDers though and that is a good thing. Autism (other than mild forms of it), is a more serious disorder than ADD spectrum I believe.-- Mr ADHD |  T@1k?  22:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We have sites that state "We are not people with a defective NT (neuro-typical) operating system, we are people with a different (autistic) but intact operating system. Our "way of being in the world" is different" I have not looked into this in detail however. -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Some info should be added to the article about the advantages ADHD can bring for some people who have the condition. Of course, the advantages are far fewer than the disadvantages. Most ADHD people have comorbid conditions, which are very often a bigger problem than ADHD itself. ADHD can give someone a lively, extrovert personality, as is the case with Zooey Deschanel. It would be useful if we could establish whether there is a link to creativity, in the way that there is for bipolar disorder. 109.249.97.65 (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes Doc, but those are written largely by people who are on the autistic spectrum; if autism had benefits it would be more prevalent (it is less than 1 percent of population), whereas natural selection has favoured ADHD with it occurring in 5-8 percent of the population. The refs are not reliable sources either hehe. :-P
 * 109.249.x.x I think the level of comorbid conditions with ADHD are exagerated in part because only the more severely behaviourally disturbed tend to get referred for treatment as patients for studies are recruited out of psychiatric or pediatric facilities; in the wild (general population outside of psychiatry/pediatic patients), I doubt very much that 20 percent of random ADHDers out there in the general public have conduct disorder (are mini psychopaths); of those referred to psychiatry or pediatrics or criminal justice/courts, sure that figure is probably accurate. A lot of co-morbid conditions may also be connected to substance abuse rather than naturally occurring but I am not in denial that there is an elevation comorbid conditions with ADHD. I am just looking at the evidence (research) in context. But this is just my perspective. We are being kind of bad here and kind of sort of violating WP:TALK by talking about the subject rather than the article content. Lol. :-P I don't mind though.-- Mr ADHD |  T@1k?  02:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't agree more with the original poster here. I have ADHD and to me I do not feel that there is anything wrong with me. I am not good at following directions and paying attention -- I tune in and out. Do I feel like that is a problem or a developmental disorder that I wish I could correct? No, not at all -- it's my way of life. When I tune in and out I am not saying to myself: "why can't you just pay attention?" What is happening is that while I am paying attention, a myriad of other very exciting and interesting ideas pop into my consciousness and I would rather pay attention to them before I continue on following directions. When it comes down to it, society does not evolve on an individual basis. There is no ideal way of thinking, to have or not have ADHD/autism/etc. All of these ways of thinking are important in society. If nobody had ADHD and we all thought in a purely deterministic way that followed continuity, many of the great people that exist today in society and their great ideas that they would only be able to come up with by thinking in a DIFFERENT way than everyone else, would not be here today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.208.251 (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious why ADHD has completely co-opted ADD in this article and elsewhere. Hyperactivity seems to be the main "problem/concern", but people with ADD don't have that, and tend to have a stunning ability to focus on a single project or whatever for hours at a time. ADD itself doesn't seem to get much press in this article except as a part of ADHD. --Sgtkabuki (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In the USA, the term "ADHD" is now generally thought to include "ADD" (and it's too true that hyperactivity is the most conspicuous sign of ADHD) but children (and adults) with either have the same problem -- an inability to control focus, they always seem to have too little (hyper) or too much (undistractable.) htom (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * These are terms from the DSM. The DSM 3 used ADD and switch to ADHD in the DSM 4TR. Thus we use ADHD the more recent term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

NPOV - Oktober 2012
ADHS ain't a neurobehavioral disorder. It's caractrerized as "Behavioural and emotional disorders with onset usually occurring in childhood and adolescence" in ICD 10. In DSM too. The DSM is about mental disorders. Neurobehavioral disorders are the classification of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. But most shrinks think it's a mental disorder. So the neutrality of this article is not fullfiled. -- WSC ® 16:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you! I would like to see the definition changed into behavioural disorder because the ICD/DSM description of criteria only mentions behavioural symptoms, no emotional ones.  Lova Falk     talk   17:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Added "mental disorder" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the neurobehavioral disorder is still misplaced. 1. The cause isn't a clear neuronal caused behavioral disorder. There's no mechianism found which has a distinct causality to the behavioral problems. (You can't diagnose a ADHD by Medical imaging) 2. ADHD is described as multifactorial caused mental disorder. This model exclude a single neurobehavioral cause as only trigger of adhd. 3. Schizophrenia is suspected as neurobehavioral disorder too. There were found much clearer coherences between brain metabolism and the typical symptoms. Additional, the genetic coherences of schizophrenia are much higher than of ADHD. But nobody had the dump idea to call schizophrenia a "neurobehavioral disorder" . A lot of research makes clear that there is much more needed to trigger a schizophrenia than a simple "neurological" vulnerability and genetical load. But when a child fools around in classroom, like on this fucking foto, it's a neurobehavioral disorder? Thats highly nonserious of the authors of the article to permit such opinions in the introduction.


 * The opinion of the "National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke" is relevant. But not in the introduction of our article. And not sourced by an simple information website.


 * -- WSC ® 20:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many references that support that ADHD is a neurobehavioural disorder other than the NINDS. This textbooks states "It has been hypothesized that neurobehavioral disabilities of childhood, such asADHD or learning disorders" We also have this "According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (2000), ADHD is the most common neurobehavioral disorder of childhood, as well as the most prevalent chronic health condition affecting school- aged children"  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think you are right. The quantity of the sources makes clear that ADHD is also discribed as a neurobehavioral disorder. But I try to challange the mention in the introduction! I now try to give you an understandig of my problem with the mention of "neurobehavioral" in the introduction, by pure numerals: In Google-Scholar, you have about 950 hits with the keywords neurobehavioral disorder and ADHD. But if you search the keywords mental disorder and ADHD, you have about 15,000 or 12,000 (for developmental disorder) hits. Incident to the more or less official opinion of WHO's ICD and the APA's DSM-4R and -5 it is described predominantly as mental disorder. So that should be our neutral view too. -- WSC ® 11:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Google hits is not evidence. Both are accepted positions thus we should mention both in the lead.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, these are not google hits. These are hits an an scientiffic search engine. I know you are abel to discuss a theme by ignorin all other arguments. Thats phenomenal! Please read my last contrib again. -- WSC ® 21:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I know it is google scholar. We still do not determine content by google hits. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see you like to read only my half argumentation. We still determine contents by official definitions. Don't we? Look, it's a official determination to call ADHD a mental disorder. A official resolution like show a embrassing and stereotype picture of ADHD-child causing problems unprovoked because the picture was found on the CDC-Website. That was your argumentation as I remeber. -- WSC ® 04:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Doc realized the problem. Both his ignor of ethical issues at the picture and his overstate of the bilogical paradigm in the introduction. Nothing seems to stand in the way to ballance that in the article. -- WSC ® 09:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the rules are on .de, but here we take wp:NPA seriously. Please address the content, not the editors. Now then, a scholar search on the terms, filtered "since 2012", finds 9 results using all those terms. One of those, perhaps the most useful is to The Neuroscience of Autism Spectrum Disorders, Joseph D. Buxbaum & Patrick R. Hof (eds). Academic Press, 2012 ISBN 9780123919304 p.70, which discusses the impact of Lovaas (1987) in "shifting many people's perspective from viewing autism as an untreatable mental disorder, to viewing it as a developmental disorder..." (my emphasis). Also valuable is: Krisanaprakornkit T, Ngamjarus C, Witoonchart C, Piyavhatkul N. "Meditation therapies for attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD006507. . Its abstract begins "Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common developmental disorders experienced in childhood..." (again, my emphasis).

Are there better sources which address the (multiple) terminologies? LeadSongDog come howl!  20:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * More than a question of NPOV, it seems to me that this may be a case of different classifications saying different things (per specialty) about a condition whose causes are little understood and consequently difficult to classify. So you pays your money and you takes your choice, as it were. Or rather, perhaps the page should somehow reflect the different standpoints? A few more (more or less recent) MEDRS:


 * Etiologic Classification of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Millichap (2008) (currently ref 76) begins "Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is a neurobiological syndrome..."
 * A critical review of ADHD diagnostic criteria: what to address in the DSM-V. Bell (2011) might be informative, but I don't have easy access to the full text.
 * Using the international classification of functioning, disease and health in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: separating the disease from its epiphenomena. Ustün (2007) is another possibility.
 * This is obviously a slippery surface. Anyway, I certainly agree that User:Doc James deserves a good faith apology. —MistyMorn (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course we take NPA serious. But that doesn't mean ordinarily that anybody has to let himself stultify by anyone else. In this discussion it seems to me DocJames only argument is, that the picture was taken by an govermental information page. A page with a lousy quality. If he is not able to have a slightly in depth excogitatin about the ethics of his profession and the work in wikipedia, I will call it as it is.


 * The issue of the controversy if ADHD is an developmental or an neurobehavioural disorder is a question of the paradigmatic backround of the authors of the sources. A neurologist that was trained to treat diseases caused by organic brain changes or the disorder of brain metabolism has a minor access to mental issues. But it's reverse the same. But you have to consider that the state of the art in psychiaty and psychology is basically the same as in neurology. ADHD is caused by an metabolic "shift" or "change" partially relate with organic changes (e.g. differences in the frontal brain). But the somatic changes in brain are not the only cause of ADHD. You also have individuals which have minor or no of these somatic markers. Also you have individuals which have such somatic markes but they doesn't show the typical behavioural changes. Thats why these profession claime a multifactorial cause of ADHD which includes psychosocial conditions. Thats why DocJames is not utter wrong. But a bit superficial. -- WSC ® 09:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please make sure you Comment on content, not on the contributor. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice that you think the hint, a user don't care about ethical aspekts is a violation of NPA. That doesn't mean your are right. I could turn the argumentation and claim a in depht argumentation as reason for a revert (form a admin) like these:   . Justified with an,... ahm? with an? Please give me the right word for this! -- WSC ® 12:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we clarified this point. If there are no furhter reasons, I delate the picture now from the article. -- WSC ® 17:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "...this point." What point? —MistyMorn (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Man! The NPA point man! -- WSC ® 18:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is not consensus for deleting the image. Yes hyperactivity and disruption of ones classroom is one of the common symptoms/signs of ADHD. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to keep such a ethic doubious picture. It's a pitty you as physican have no idea of ethical roots. Thats why I will delate the picture. -- WSC ® 08:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Having posted warnings about attacking the contributor (WP:NPA) on User:Widescreen's talk page, I will try to address the content issue. On ethical grounds, use of the image would certainly be improper if it was being used to stigmatize children with ADHD. On the contrary, within the context of this page I think it communicates to readers that in certain cases of individual disruption in the classroom there may be more than meets the eye. Maybe this point could somehow be made more clearly in the caption? —MistyMorn (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just edited the caption. Hope that's OK. I am just an average joe in this discussion, so I may be missing something. I agree with MistyMorn. The image is neutral and fair, questioning the ethics of another editor is not. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said in the previous discussion here, the picture spreads a stereotypical an abusive meaning of ADHD-concerned. Compare this picture with an homeless seemes like suffering on schizophrenia molested others on the street in the article Schizophrenia. Would you havn't ethical problems with this kind of figuering? It's neccessary to have an ethical reflect of what contents we spread in two different contexts. 1. As ethical reflection on the roots of medicine and social science and 2. as authors of an enzyclopedia. Why don't you have a look at the pictures in the german article: de:Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit-/Hyperaktivitätsstörung? Only DocJames is sympathetic to leave the picture. But he ain't go no arguments not even a explanation. -- WSC ® 16:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK I see what you mean now. This kind of class disruption was how ADHD first came to the notice of the media, and because of this it has become a stereotype. If I was to put a picture on schizophrenia I would probably show a homeless person being molested by 'normal' people. The article already has an image of a child trying to study. Any second image should illustrate a different aspect of the disorder, but I do not know what that would be. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never saw a ADHD child act like that. Maybe this is the imagination of CDC Website-designers or an contract-photographer what happens in classrooms today? But I'm no CDC Website-designer and no contract-photographer. -- WSC ® 17:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I saw quite a few ADHD children act like that. But for me it's fine to remove the picture. What would be really nice is a picture in which the advantages of ADHD are illustrated, their energy and creativity.  Lova Falk     talk   17:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Or they suffering on social exclusion or having relation problems in family? Or we ask the reades of read the text, not have a look at a conduct-disorder. -- WSC ® 18:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see any concerns with the pictures we have here on the English Wikipedia. This is a common symptom of ADHD and a common compliant by teachers. I have spend sometime working in child psychiatry and have read descriptions from teachers that match this picture. It is not a sterotype but one key diagnostic criteria / symptoms. There are many review articles and the DSM to back this up.
 * Now with respect to the German Wikipedia, the picture they use of the brains scan from a 1990 study is IMO inappropriate. First of all it is not supported by an appropriate source but by a primary research paper from the 1990 and thus fails WP:MEDRS. It gives way to much weight to medical imaging. Medical imaging is never used in diagnosis, however descriptions of activity as in the picture above is. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Im currently work at child psychiatry. And I've never heard a child act like that. I often heare sufferd child talk in lessons or don't follow the instruction or are restless and can't sit calmly. If they also show cunduct-disordes they often have brawls or refuse the instructions. If sufferd children feel unfair treated they have conflicts with the teachers. Most of them are just restless and inattentive But a lot of them just "dream away" in lessons. But I've never heard they act like a fool. Futher it's not part of the diagnosis criteria they act in class like that. In DSM IV it's no criteria they make grimaces. Like it's no DSM-cirteria schizophrens are molester others or beeing homeless. That doesn't mean it's no common byeffect. -- WSC ® 05:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Never seen a child act like what? Display a deficit in their ability to pay attention/concentrate? The picture shows a child concentrating or trying to concentrate on work; a deficit in the ability to pay attention is one of the core features of ADHD. Why do you think that it is called attention deficit disorder? I am mystified as to how you have come to the conclusion that this image is inappropriate. The image should remain in this article.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  21:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't see a child not paying attention in class. You see a child act like a clown. That's not typical but stereotypical on ADHD concerned. Think about a child have a look at the article. What would it think about his disorder? Or they classmates. But you know, ADHD-childs ain't got no feelings and no cognition. But it's not necessary you understand that point. Let people decide that who are interested in such issues and care about it. If you want to have an access to that issue maybe take my compare whith the schizophrenic. -- WSC ® 23:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I apologise, I thought that it was the image in the lede/introduction that was in dispute. Okay, about the image in question, ADHD young people (even to a certain extent some adults with ADHD) do tend to clown around when it is not appropriate. Desruptive behaviour is quite common in ADHD people. I don't think the image should be deleted but if a better alternative picture is available which is more appropriate it could be considered for replacing the picture you dispute. Have you got an alternative picture in mind? I think that the various psychiatric co-morbidity's discussed in this article, especially conduct disorder and substance abuse reflect more badly on ADHD people than the picture of a kid clowning around but what is is.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  23:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Where do we need a picture for? Is it necessary to confirm anybodys stereotyps and prejudices. Especially we as authors of an enzyklopedia? I think the image is more transfiguring than clarifying. What about the people doesen't act like that. As an embellishment I think it's to controversial. Is it a benefit to our readers to add such a photo as loosening part? I don't think so. It's diffiulty to find a picture which makes a behavioral disorder visual. Or have a look at the article Conduct disorder. Thers no image of an child with a knife rob an old dame. (And I hope there is none) -- WSC ® 23:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Widescreen removed the picture, Jmh649 put it back in. I will now revert this again for the following reason: the picture is controversial and it is not part of any sourced content. Controversial unsourced material should only be part of an article if there is consensus that this material should be part of the article. Lova Falk    talk   11:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure I have added a reference to support the image. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do pictures require references?-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  12:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically no. But in this case they are easy to find as the image is from the CDC. Also "disruptive behavior" is described as one of the four common symptoms of ADHD along with inattention and hyperactivity. This picture shows all three of these common symptoms. The fourth mentioned is academic difficulty. The picture being of an academic environment also in away conveys this. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine with me! It is (almost?) a curious example of the Streisand effect, because the request to remove the picture has given the disruptive behavior a bigger place in the article than it had before...  Lova Falk     talk   14:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This contention over the caption should be a candidate for wp:Lamest edit wars. Really, do we need a caption in the "Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" article to explain that children with "Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" may exhibit a deficit of attention or hyperactivity in the classroom? Why not just "ADHD frequently is seen in the classroom". Full Stop. Move along, there's nothing to see here. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Lova Falk    talk   18:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

@DocJames: Do you really believe, the Website of CDC is a reliable source? I've never heard such a far-fetched nonsens! -- WSC ® 17:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt you'll find many serious editors who have problems with treating the Centers for Disease Control as being among the most reliable of publishers. Of course you're welcome to ask at wp:RSN, but I suggest you'll need a reason to impeach that source. Collectively, we bet our lives on the quality of their work, day in and day out, usually without even being aware of it. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't need the RSN to estimate a source. We don't talk about the syphilis prevalence rate nor talk about a published survey of CDC. We talk about their website. You can't expect specialist ethical standards from a public helth agency. But ask yourself: Is this website peer-reviewed? Is this website publised in a scientiffic "press" (or publisher)? No, it isn't. Because CDC doesn't add such pictures to their serious publications. If you don't want to realize the ethical question maybe you will recognize the quality aspect?
 * Futher, I'm not convinced about the quality of govermental organisation in scholarly tasks. The CIA is also a govermental organisation. In germany we have private professional association. Thats a kind of obedient to authority. It would be fine, if there were a authority who can solve all questions, beginning with the reliable sources end ending with ethical questions. But I don't wanna overcharge you with ethical issues. I think this critical view is quite strange to the anglophone wikipedians. I think thats nonserious. Scholarly sources are indipendent and have more quality than such a website. -- WSC ® 19:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the CDC is not even vaguely comparable to the CIA! Around the world, the CDC tends to be considered considered one of the most reliable sources of information around. A bit like the National Library of Medicine (another US body promoting health internationally), and on a rather somewhat similar level to the World Health Organization. The idea that this organization dedicated to disease prevention, with their ethical reputation and remit to defend, might risk being perceived as stigmatizing anyone who suffers from any disorder really isn't credible. I have to say I really think you've chosen the wrong target here (albeit in good faith). —MistyMorn (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've heard about the CDC just marginal. That perhaps down to the fact that I'm no physican and not interested in public health system of the USofA. But I think you overstate the meaning of CDC as "similar level to the WHO". From a german view thats just a joke. The CDC was descibed in our article: " The CDC focus national attention on developing and applying disease prevention and control (especially infectious diseases and foodborne pathogens and other microbial infections), environmental health, occupational safety and health, health promotion, injury prevention and education activities" They might have a importance in somiatic medicine (especially infectious diseases and foodborne pathogens and other microbial infections) but I've never heard they have any influence in psychiatry or psychology and I read relatively a lots of english scientiffic literature. That means the website of CDC (and this image) is published to spread Health promotion. Thats means their website is not a scholarly publication. But don't get me wrong! I won't allege the CDC, they are willing to stigmatize anyone. I just alleg they're not thorough with their webside. That's why this website is no source for us. The argument of DocJames, to constitute this website as reliable source is just a misinterpretation of what a reliable source is. But I got to say you are right! "I have to say I really think you've chosen the wrong target here (albeit in good faith)" In de:wp nobody ever would have such a inane discussion to save such a obviously unencyclopaedic and pejorative image which such odd arguments. And I'm not sure if I'm inclined to explain enzyclopedic and ethical fundamentals here. -- WSC ® 20:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the picture still represents 3 of the core traits of ADHD, inattention, disruptiveness and hyperactivity and you have not proposed a better picture. All of your arguing, seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT; I do appreciate that your motives are well intentioned and in WP:GOODFAITH.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  21:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's tru, I don't like this image! It's pejorative and downplaying. My point is, if you read my argumentation, that this child is acting in a special way, the child act if it were dumb. Thats pejorative in childs doesn't act like that but find other ways of showing the typical behavior. The imange showes more a naive conception of the behaviour. There are childs how can destroy a lessen without act as they are stupid. Some just have problems in breaks and so on. The benefit of this image (if there is one) is subject ot the "obscurity". Of course the reader want a image to clarifying anything. A image for the relativity theory, a image for french literature and a image for adhd. But you can't make a behavioural disorder visual! An other example: Oppositional defiant disorder the picture here shows a child is raging. Thats not a conduct disorder! Every child will act like that, it takes a bit more to diagnose such a disorder. It's more confusing than anything else. But I repeat myself. -- WSC ® 21:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record I agree the CDC site is an RS. Having said, that, I suggest the image be removed. I don't see what it adds to how it enhances [see below] the reader's understanding of the subject. People who know what "behave disruptively" means don't need the image, and people who don't know what it means get a cartoonish (figurately as well as literally) idea of it means from the image. I'm not even sure which is supposed to be "is" the ADHD kid. Maybe it's the boy in front who's trying hard to focus on his work (a tough job because of his ADHD) despite the just-plain-rotten (but not ADHD) kid behind him. EEng (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Images are not meant to add anything new but rather reflect the subject matter being discussed as it adds visual context to the article. If you or anyone have trouble identifying which child is the one with ADHD, read the text below the image.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  23:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've modified my comment to employ more careful phrasing. You may be right that an image needn't (perhaps even shouldn't) add anything new, but certainly at the very least it should enhance the reader's understanding. And I claim it fails to do that, for the reasons already stated.  In fact, your post strengthens my point quite nicely. If you or anyone think my comment reflects actual difficulty identifying which child is meant to "be" ADHD, or that I didn't read the caption, try giving my comment more careful thought. Given the contents of your userpage  I'm surprised you're so comfortable with the implication that the class troublemaker must be the kid with ADHD, and vice-versa. EEng (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What can I say? I am a surprising and unpredictable person. :)-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  23:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

One can interpret the image in many ways. For example it might remind people that if a child is being disruptive in class, it might not be that he is simply a "bad kid" but that he may have a psychiatric condition that may benefit from treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point, but then the caption should be clear about that, if the image is going to stay. But -- returning to my tiresome point -- does this image really enhance the reader's understanding more than it plays into misunderstanding? EEng (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say yes. The reason why this image seem so controversial is that people disagree that being disruptive in the classroom is a common symptom of ADHD. We have a lot of literature that being disruptive is a common symptoms and this image help correct this misunderstanding. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A good argument! But the image could also be misunderstood: Parents could say: No, my child act like that! My child doesn't act like a fool. This is a teachers problem they can't treat my child! You can't replace the informations are needed to describe the disorder by a image. The second point is: You can also place the image in the article conduct disorder or better in Oppositional defiant disorder (ICD characterized by markedly defiant, disobedient, disruptive behaviour that does not include delinquent acts or the more extreme forms of aggressive or dissocial behaviour). You can write "Child shows disobendient behavior". The picture is not selective enough. But I repeat myself. -- WSC ® 05:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One could say the same thing about the image at strep throat. You can get this appearance with mono, diptheria, and a number of other infections. Yes it is not 100% specific. No image is. Does not mean however that we should get rid of them all. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay! 1. The image at strep throat isn't derogatory. 2. So the image doesn't claifying anything. It shows people with conduct disorders suffer on ADHD. If you want to know what is about ADHD you have to read the text. You could ask yourself what's the benefit of this image? 3. Disruptivie actions in the classroom are also a common symptom on Oppositional defiant disorder. And it is a main symptom of ODD! What about the suptypes of ADHD arn't disruptive at school? The image could be misunderstood when parents have a child isn't disruptive.


 * The image isn't necessary. It's derogatory and doesn't present any additional benefit to the article. That's why the image have to delated. -- WSC ® 11:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

edit request on 2012-10-27
I think the following phrase should be corrected, since it doesn't make sense as written: "In children and adolescents with ADHD can have their high IQ missed when standard testing is performed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbwilli (talk • contribs) 22:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback Rbwilli. I have tweaked the wording slightly. Tell me what you think. Okay now?-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  23:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Error in first sentence on page
The first sentence in this article either has an extraneous "a" after the "is" or is missing a noun after the "is". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.106.50.38 (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. Cresix (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted text from DSM-IV
First let me emphasize that I'm not questioning the appropriateness of the removal by in this edit. If the American Psychiatric Association has asked that it be removed, I would have removed it myself if I had known. Here's my question and some comments. MrADHD commented that APA "asked for its diagnostic codes not be put onto Wikipedia". Does that mean the literal codes (which are 314.00, 314.01, and 314.9) or the words used to describe the diagnostic criteria? I have seen those diagnostic criteria used word for word in several books published by respectable authors and publishers. The words were presented as a quotation, and there was a citation to DSM-IV, but there wasn't a statement that the words were "used by permission". What exactly did APA say in its communication with Wikipedia? Certainly the information should be presented as a quotation with a citation to DSM-IV, but does APA even object to such a quotation? Cresix (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not exactly sure, but I remember about a year ago or so the AMA contacting wikipedia and it being discussed on WT:MED and subsequently DSM diagnostic criterias were removed from most of the psychiatric disorder articles. I am not sure why it was not removed from the ADHD article a year ago, maybe because ADHDers are so, errm rebellious? lol I don't think we can copy and paste any content out of the DSM books but if you want a specific answer you are better asking over at the medicine project that I linked earlier in this post as I cannot remember the specifics.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  23:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we be completely sure? Because the ADHD criteria are all over the internet. For instance, it is on behavenet, and in their terms of use they only say: "When citing material found here please follow style guidelines of Modern Language Association." They don't say: "Don't copy the criteria." So are you really sure we cannot have them? And can't we write back and discuss with them?  Lova Falk     talk   08:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not the numbers but the wording that they did not wish us to use. We just need to paraphrase. But I am not completely sure. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case we just need to copyedit a little bit and put them back in! (Soon I'll be off to a birthday party so I can't do it today...)  Lova Falk     talk   09:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. :-)-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  23:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, a link to a legitimate published use of the exact text seems safe, such as Solanto M. I don't think that could be construed as anything but fair use. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it fair use??? The source you link, as well as DSM-IV from which the material was obtained, are copyrighted. We are not any more entitled to copy word for word from your source as we are from DSM-IV. If we paraphrase and need to make a citation, DSM-IV works very well for that. Cresix (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Solanto M is, I believe, advocating the addition of link and not the incorporation of the verbatim text into the article. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! That makes sense. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Causes of ADHD
The causes are very clear, in fact, in a recent 2010 study conducted at Cardiff by respectable scientists with very compelling evidence that the sole cause is genetic. One of the most significant affected genes is on a region of the 16th chromosome previously linked to schizophrenia, and has similar chromosomal changes as autism, copy number variants(CNVs), and other brain disorders. Sources:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100929191312.htm, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-09/wt-sff092810.php I also read the article about it on the lancet but i lost where it is. 174.26.35.15 (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you have grossly overstated the case. No doubt there are genetic factors, and your links give us evidence of that. But this is a medical article, and medicine is largely based on science. And anyone with a very elementary knowledge of the scientific method knows that one (even two or three) studies almost never confirms that a psychiatric disorder has a sole cause. And a first year med student knows that genetics is a very complex field, and that the more we find out that we know, the more we realize how much we don't know The information you cite provide some pieces of a very large and complex puzzle, but no more. Cresix (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

thank you for your feed back but im fourteen so therefore i am not a first year med student, and my overstatements, if any, arent gross but slight over steps caused by my feelings about the subject considering i have ADHD-HI and i know from experience with my family medical history that the studies are right. Dont look down at me just because im young, i could have been in college by now but im not "emotionally ready" or "mentally mature enough". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.35.15 (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's certainly quite understandable that as a 14 year old you would not have the understanding that a physician, psychologist, or scientist would have. And your own diagnosis of ADHD I'm sure gives you a sensitivity that many don't have. But I haven't looked down on anyone; I have simply stated the scientific facts. Concluding from one or two studies that anything is a sole cause of ADHD is a gross overstatement. Medical science does not operate by the opinions of one person who has been diagnosed. If I were not a physician and concluded from reading one study that the only way I should treat my high blood pressure is to just go easy on the salt, I could be needlessly cutting decades off my life span. Having a disorder gives someone knowledge about the disorder, but it does not make them a medical expert on it. So, your intentions may have been good, but your conclusions were simply wrong. But let me encourage you to keep reading about your disorder. The more you know about it, the more you will be able to help others help you to manage it. Cresix (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia medical articles, we mostly report the findings of "review" articles - these are articles published in scholarly journals that give an expert overview of a topic. We tend to avoid reporting the conclusions or results of single studies like the Lancet article Science Daily and Eureka Alert reported on. By relying on reviews, we can be more confident that we're giving due weight to the different views within a topic, especially relatively new results. (The relevant guideline is Identifying reliable sources/Medicine).


 * I found the Lancet article in Google Scholar, clicked on "Cited by 145" and scanned the . One of those results is a review that looks like a more appropriate source to use for a statement about the genetic origins of ADHD.


 * Please don't be put off contributing to Wikipedia articles by this experience, most professors make the same mistake when they first start editing our medical content. Most readers aren't aware of the guidelines that govern Wikipedia, until they have a go. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Low arousal theory
I am of the opinion that this section can be merged into the pathophysiology section of this article. There is little secondary sourced content about this theory, so having its own section does not appear to be justified especially in a main overview article such as this. The main article low arousal theory contains poor sourcing and could probably also be merged and redirected or the article deleted. Low arousal just seems to be an interpretation of part of the pathophysiology rather than being a prominent defacto theory. Thoughts?-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  14:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree! It is now a subsection of social causes, and it is really out of place there.  Lova Falk     talk   14:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Is ADHD a mental/psychiatric disorder?
While it is primarily defined by the DSM and is treated primarily by the field of psychiatry which IMO makes it obvious. However as this continue to be removed here are some additional refs:


 * 1) Textbook of psychiatry
 * 2) Another
 * 3) NIH refers to it as a mental disorder

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a distinction without a difference? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychiatric_disorder&action=history psychiatric disorder has been a redirect to mental disorder for five years now. LeadSongDog come howl!  14:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No mental disorder and psychiatric disorder is the same. I am happy with using either or in the lead. I do not see the justification for removing this designation. Not sure if someone is claiming that it is not a "mental disorder"? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Typo
It is written under 5. Management: Dietary modifications many also be of benefit.
 * Thank you for telling us. I fixed it.  Lova Falk     talk   18:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Several typos: "predominately" should be "predominantly"
There are a few instances of the term "predominantly" which have been mispelled "predominately" including the first paragraph in the intro, and two in the fourth paragraph of the section "Diagnosis". For some reason, my account is still not yet confirmed, even though I've been using it a long time, probably because most of the edits I submit are done without logging in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purefusion (talk • contribs) 08:48, 24 December 2012‎
 * Thank you for telling us. Time to start logging in Face-smile.svg! Happy holidays to you.   Lova Falk     talk   10:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Mini review
Have agreed to go through this article and provide some feedback.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This ref does not give the page number
 * This is not really a reliable source "Brain Matures A Few Years Late In ADHD, But Follows Normal Pattern". "
 * Thank you Doc! I have deleted the weak source. Unfortunately the book ref without page numbers given probably can only be resolved by getting the book and reading it or else finding better sources. That means more work, ugh. We will get this article there in the end.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  23:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh? I have done it for you. Here I could search the book and I found all the missing page numbers. Face-smile.svg Happy new year!  Lova Falk     talk   10:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Very cool! Thanks! How much do I owe you? :-p-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  18:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One good article please. Face-smile.svg  Lova Falk     talk   22:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are an expensive lady! Okay I will try my best. :-)-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  02:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Add genetic link between five major psychiatric disorders, from wikinews ... or too new?
From Portal:Current events/2013 February 28 ... In The Lancet, genetics links between five major psychiatric disorders: autism, ADHD, bipolar disorder, depression, and schizophrenia per recent study.
 * 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61345-8

99.109.125.252 (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not that it is too new it is that the source in question is a primary research paper rather than a review article. We should wait until a proper review has been done on the topic. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 March, 2013
Just a minor edit in punctuation. In the Cause section under the subsection Diet, the first sentence "Concerns were first raised by Benjamin Feingold, a paediatric allergist that food colourings and additives may..." ought to have a comma after "allergist". That, or the sentence can be rearranged to say "Concerns were first raised by paediatric allergist Benjamin Feingold, who suggested that food colourings and...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by CetteFoisDemain (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

✅. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2013
No mentions has been made as to the physical symptoms often accompanying ADHD. For example a significant proportion of individuals with ADHD have issues with higher levels of muscular tension. It would be appreciated if someone could add information in this regard.
 * Please provide us a reliable source. New sections go at the bottom of the page. Please don't remove other information from the talk page. Cresix (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April, 2013

 * I would like to place this edit in the Society and Culture: Controversies heading.
 * Pre-existing text included, added text in bold.

'''Controversies

Main article: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies ADHD and its diagnosis and treatment have been considered controversial since the 1970s.[17][18][158] The controversies have involved clinicians, teachers, policymakers, parents and the media. Opinions regarding ADHD range from not believing it exists at all[16]:p.23[159] to believing there are genetic and physiological bases for the condition as well as disagreement about the use of stimulant medications in treatment.[18][19]''' Social science perceptions challenge biomedical views on the true cause of ADHD symptoms. Symptoms are viewed by this perspective as a consequence of normalisation; where it has been constructed in culture/society that it is normal to be focused/well behaved/patient etc. and therefore abnormal to act differently. Furthermore, as Ruth Benedict outlined, in most modern cultures normal is associated strongly with being good, whereas abnormality usually carries bad connotations. '''

Some sociologists consider ADHD to be a "classic example of the medicalization of deviant behavior, defining a previously nonmedical problem as a medical one".[17] Most healthcare providers in U.S. accept that ADHD is a genuine disorder with debate in centering mainly around how it is diagnosed and treated.[20][21][22]'''Although some may argue that the medicalization of what is constructed as socially detrimental behaviours would alleviate patients of responsibility for their actions, others would insist that it merely permits health professionals to exert influence over the care and management of such individuals. In addition, although disease based subjectivities caused by medicalization may be liberating for some, they can cause negative impacts such as oppression for others. Furthermore, medicalization of ADHD and the consequential biomedical treatment used to relieve symptoms can lead to iatrogenesis and added complications for the individual. Therefore not only do social science perspectives challenge the validity of the ‘disease’ but also highlight the negative social and medical aspects associated with treating the ‘symptoms’.

Possible overdiagnosis of ADHD, the use of stimulant medications in children, and the methods by which ADHD is diagnosed and treated are other main areas of controversy.[160] Possible long-term side-effects of stimulants and their usefulness are largely unknown because of a lack of long-term studies.[161] Some research raises questions about the long-term effectiveness and side-effects of medications used to treat ADHD,[162] with evidence existing that stimulant use during childhood increases the risk of developing symptoms of hallucinations or mania in a small portion of the population, with symptoms resolving when medication is discontinued.[163] With a "wide variation in diagnosis across states, races, and ethnicities" some investigators suspect that factors other than neurological conditions play a role when the diagnosis of ADHD is made.[100]'''

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grpryor3 (talk • contribs)


 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I have requested assistance from the editors of Wikiproject Medicine. -- El Hef  ( Meep ? ) 02:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We need more recent references to support content additions. Three of the refs are from before the 1980s and the other textbook is lacking a page number. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment on lead
or else fail to respond to psychotherapeutic input.[16]:p.317: There seems to be an error in the citation template since I suppose the p.317 outside the citation is the pages in the citation.--Garrondo (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is because the citation is used multiple times with multiple different pages cited.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  23:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the answer. I had not seen that kind of citation of pages... I personally do not really like the aesthethics but since it is used consistently sorry about the comment. --Garrondo (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Other comment (this one more important):

The lead ends with The National Institute for Clinical Excellence, while acknowledging the controversy, states that the current treatments and methods of diagnosis are based on the dominant view of the academic literature.

I have several problems with this specific sentence:
 * 1-Too specific for the lead. It mentions an specific national institution and gives the position of that institution. However, there is no mention to the country, nor to why it is important its opinion or position.
 * 2-Related to above: it is probably a case of regional bias to give the name of a UK institution, specially when the country is not stated and assummed that it is known.
 * 3-Similarly is probably a case of undue weight, since IMO the use in the lead with the name of the institution gives the impression that it is only the opinion of the specific institution whereas it is probably the opinion of most experts. Unless there is a source stating the opposite of similar reliability, there is no need to give overt attributtion in the lead to the position statement.
 * 4-It is not a summary of the article, since nowhere in the main article it is again mentioned this institution (I have only searched for the term, so I might be wrong), breaking WP:lead.

Proposed solution: Leave in lead a summarized sentence, sort of "Current treatments and methods of diagnosis are based on the dominant view of the academic literature" (with the citation) and in the body of the article leave the whole sentence with the link to the institution and a mention of the United Kingdom.

Opinions?--Garrondo (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Further comments in relation to GAN from Garrondo
As I am not sure on how to contribute the review I will make comments here (at least for now).
 * After talking to Zad I will move to the GAN page comments that are clearly GAN related, while I will leave here the most specific comments on content.--Garrondo (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Signs and symptoms

 * I miss internal links in the list of symptoms. Many of them could be linked and would give potentially interesting info to a reader.


 * Symptom Be very impatient is the only one with a quantity modifier (very). I would eliminate it, since it is redundant (All symptoms are symptoms when they are much more than in the normal population.


 * Some children, adolescents, and adults with ADHD have an increased risk of experiencing : NO: all have an increased risk. Some will experience the named problems.


 * Training in social skills, behavioural modification and medication may have some limited beneficial effects. The most important factor in reducing emergence of later psychopathology, such as major depression, criminality, school failure, and substance use disorders is formation of friendships with people who are not involved in delinquent activities. This is not sign and symptoms. Reallocate or eliminate.


 * Adolescents with ADHD are more likely to have difficulty making and keeping friends due to impairments in processing verbal and nonverbal language Hardly the only reason

--Garrondo (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Inattention and hyperactive behavior are not necessarily the only problems in children with ADHD. ADHD exists alone in only about 1/3 of the children diagnosed with it. The combination of ADHD with other conditions can greatly complicate diagnosis and treatment. Many co-existing (comorbid) conditions require other courses of treatment and should be diagnosed separately instead of being grouped in the ADHD diagnosis.: I have added the two citation tags. The first one is a very specific statement and a source should be given. Regarding the second one, it might be an oversimplification, since also the treatment of ADHD might improve this comorbid disorders, and anyway, it is uncited.


 * Long list of comorbid disorders: in the long term (probably towards FAC) it might be a good idea to summarize it and create a secondary article. Right now it is a bit laundry-list-like.

--Garrondo (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: 5 different refs are used to source content, including Web MD, which is probably not optimal, and others that are getting a bit old. It might be better to look for a single recent, high quality source and use it as single source.


 * Borderline personality disorder: After taking a look at the source I have not found the content it is supposed to source. Moreover regarding writting: it seems odd that only description of the relationship between BPD and ADHD is written as if a primary source was used, whereas the source is secondary.


 * Primary disorder of vigilance: not sure it is the best term, or to what does it specifically refer to. While I have no access to Web MD, there is no mention to that specific title ("Primary disorder of vigilance" or "disorder of vigilance") in pubmed, and only 27 reviews including the term vigilance and ADHD.

--Garrondo (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Mood disorders (especially Bipolar disorder and Major depressive disorder). Boys diagnosed with the combined ADHD subtype have been shown to be more likely to suffer from a mood disorder. It is not clear what it refers to: Boys more likely than girls? Boys with combined ADHD than the other boys?


 * Bipolar disorder. Adults with ADHD sometimes have co-morbid bipolar disorder, which requires careful assessment in order to accurately diagnose and treat both conditions. On the one hand a line of bipolar disorder had already been given in the line above. On the other the line on treatment does not really add much, since this careful assessment and treatment should be carried out with all comorbid disorders.

--Garrondo (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Images
The lead image needs checking. It appears to be listed CC BY NC here but maybe they gave release. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Epidemiology
We lost "ADHD's is estimated to affect about 3 to 5 percent of people under the age of 19. There is, however, both geographical and local variability among studies. Children in North America appear to have a higher rate of ADHD than children in Africa and the Middle East. " This was specifically a global look and I am not sure the new stats are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it appears it is global stats so all good. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Mood disorder
Cut from body of article:


 * Where a mood disorder complicates ADHD, it is usually best to treat the mood disorder first, but parents of children with ADHD often wish to have the ADHD treated first, because the response to treatment is quicker.

Who says it's best? The journal article authors themselves? Psychiatrists generally?

I tried reading the article online, but I couldn't find the part which says that it is usually best to treat the mood disorder first. Perhaps the contributor who added this bit could insert a quotation from the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Best leaving it deleted in my view to be honest - doesn't seem essential information for a general overview, the source is not the best and importantly as you have stated the source does not support the text. Well spotted - thanks Ed!-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  17:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

IMO this table would be best as prose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure: I am not a big fan of tables, but in this case it might be a good way of presenting lots of information in a short space. If developed into text it might end as something similar to a bullet list, or it might take lots of space. Maybe it can be left as table, and if some extra content wants to be added for any of the symtoms it can be developed into text.--Garrondo (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes not a really big fan of tables either. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Nonpharmalogical treatments
Please have a look at and editorial comment at. It would appear to be a useful source. LeadSongDog come howl!  14:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Image in Signs and symptoms
I don't believe that File:Adhd-facts1.jpg, which heads up the "Signs and symptoms" section of the article, is doing any good. It doesn't do anything to illustrate the article as is. What it does do is portray a stereotype of ADHD-influenced behavior. While this image might be good in a section about common misperceptions of ADHD, it's inappropriate to have it where it is. Cymru.lass in America (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you let the CDC know about your concerns? That fact that kids with ADHD are often disruptive in class is not a stereotype but part of the diagnostic criteria. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but "disrupting class" and "sticking out one's tongue" are two completely different things. Disrupting class generally entails things like getting out of one's seat, "zooming around", talking out of turn, talking back to the teacher, having side conversations. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly like that image either. It's a subtle, subjective thing but the image has the tone of mocking the boy with ADHD as opposed to non-judgmentally presenting the symptom.  I do understand that the symptom presented is very common and defining.  If there were another, better image that had the same benefit of visually presenting a defining symptom without the mocking quality, I would very much support switching it.  But until a better image is located I think the article is stuck with it.   02:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If the image in question has an improper, mocking quality, then the article should by no means be "stuck" with it. If this were a piece of text that had a mocking tone, even a subtle one, it would be removed if it could not be readily re-written. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 04:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just realized that I should clarify that I (cymru.lass) am the same as the original poster in this section User:Cymru.lass in America is my alt account for editing on public computers. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: In February 28, 2013 The Lan...
Xrcal posted this comment on 1 March 2013 (view all feedback).

"In February 28, 2013 The Lancet published an article about the possible genetic correlation between autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia. They analyzed genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data for the five disorders in 33 332 cases and 27 888 controls of European ancestory. The lead researcher was Dr. Jordan Smoller, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School in Boston. Smoller's group found four gene areas that all overlapped with the five disorders, two of which regulate calcium balance in the brain.    &lt;ref>http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2962129-1/fulltext&lt;/ref>"

Thought I'd move it on over to the talkpage and see what people more knowledgeable than I have to say. Any thoughts? — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)