Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/Archive 6

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

Different articles
Get the medication you need to manage ADHD symptoms effectively.

Shouldnt ADD and ADHD have their own articles? they are 2 different things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.112.57 (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder) is currently the correct diagnostic label (and umbrella term) for both attention-deficit disorder with symptoms of hyperactivity AND attention-deficit disorder without symptoms of hyperactivity. WikipedianAndrew (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

The distinction will determine if the primary course of therapy is psychological or medical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.75.2 (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the dichotomy in the previous comment between mental/psychological therapy is false. The most appropriate treatment could easily involve both types. 128.112.49.106 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Stevecudmore's and DCDuring's comments are relevant. While they observe that people with "neurological" illnesses are treated better socially than those with "mental" illnesses, this can be thought of as more of a social commentary on popular morality judgments. It might be useful to highlight that the fallacy underlying this social behaviour seems to be that "mental" illnesses are conflated with intentional behaviour. 128.112.49.106 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * Nice frame-up job there Doc.


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


 * I have no doubts that this and other articles are propaganda of the pharmaceutical industry. It's useless to advocate on Wikipedia with facts. Same old story: if you say anything against it you are a antipsychiatrist or a scientologist.--Justana (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

One last quote from my article

"It Was Like A Whitewash"'

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

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

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

My assumption for the reason Pelham was pressured to remove the paragraqh emphasizing the importance of combined treatments (medication and behavioral) is that this would expose the limitations of pediatricians, who would be required to meet this standard of care. By far, the biggest prescribers of Concerta are pediatricians. Use would go radically down if the pediatricians could not believe that they were giving appropriate care based on reasoning that they were simply fixing the chemical imbalance. --Ss06470 13:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Simon Sobo MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss06470 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


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


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


 * Here we are. A doctor who writes good information is treated like "Off-topic", someone who does not understand the rules of WP and is not credible and is making Propaganda and is considered as Spam!.

Scuro, do you believe that people are that stupid? You and all of those who are putting informations based on laboratories data and institutions that are linked with all the promotion of "disease mongering" in order to sell drugs are making propaganda. You can deny it but the public has already enough data to see clearly how unethical you all are.--Justana (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


 * It's useless User:Ss06470|Ss06470 . You are right but the "ad hominem" arguments of these people will always put people's serious work like yours under the label "anti-psychiatry" or "Scientology".

Scuro, and many other "Scuros" are everywhere. This one is one of the editors of "Anti-Psychiatry" article that is written to put your work as nonsense. We have better laugh otherwise we'll end up so bitter with all these absurdities that we'll put in jeopardy our well-being. Let's wait till all this scandal that psychiatry is promoting with the help of so many will be finally uncovered. It'll take time. A lot of time for the work of "Scuros" are well paid and count on support of institutions and powerful people as you know quite well.--Justana (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Justana, you are new. You can't simply tee-off on someone in talk. Wikipedia is not a messageboard or a blog. Your accusations are baseless, desist or risk being blocked. Please desist in making personal comments/attacks in talk. WP:EQ As Wikipedia policy states, comment on the content and not the contributor. Thank you.--scuro (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

This article is non-NPOV
I myself am ADHD (Though taking med) but since before I was even diagnosed up till now (At least seven years) I have been the smartest kid in my school -- not just grade, the entire school -- and if I was given the chance to take the 10th grade math TAKS test now I would probably ace it, yet I am only in 7th grade. Consequent of reading this article I am highly offended by the description of the prognosis of ADHD. This article does NOT conform to the NPOV policy and should be revised accordingly. eXtreme Circuitz 01:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't just make generalization based on anecdotes and complain of POV. If you have any verifiable, citable, changes to the contrary, feel free to edit the page then.  Voice -of- All  05:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Hello. I am the one who posted the original BBC story. Sorry about the unsigned post. I wasn't using my computer then. Here is my suggestion
 * BBC is a verifiable source. Hence it cannot be deleted. However, the information should be put in proper context.
 * it should be mentioned that the result is still premilary
 * it should be also mentioned that the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD is one of the most respected and authoritative study.

Vapour 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Note:I have seen some of the comments in online new media about this news. There are quite few negative comments from people who is on medication and who find the treatment helpful
 * Firstly, I should point out that medical study is about statistics, i.e. numerical assessment of both successes and failures.
 * Secondly, from what I read, the study seems to imply that behavioural therapy alone in long run work as well as the combined treatment of medication and behavioural therapy, implying that medication only provide temporary and short term fix.
 * Lastly, personal opinion, including mine, is irrelevant per verifiablity.

Vapour 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


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

Text that was removed from introduction by User:NuclearWinner
When removing substantial chunks of text, it's a courtesy to move it to the Talk page. That way, it is easier to find to reincorporate into the article, if needed. I agree that the intro was too long, so I haven't reverted this change, but there are facts here, with sources, that should probably go back into the article. I don't necessarily have time to do it.... Studies show that there is a familial transmission of the disorder which does not occur through adoptive relationships. Twin studies indicate that the disorder is highly heritable and that genetics contribute about three quarters of the total ADHD population. While the majority of ADHD is believed to be genetic in nature, roughly 1/5 of all ADHD cases are thought to be acquired after conception due to brain injury caused by either toxins or physical trauma prenatally or postnatally. According to a majority of medical research in the United States, as well as other countries, ADHD is today generally regarded as a chronic disorder for which there are some effective treatments. Over 200 controlled studies have shown that stimulant medication is an effective way to treat ADHD.

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


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


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

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

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


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


 * http://www.continuingedcourses.net/active/courses/course003.php
 * It will be in there...black and white, supported by research. There skills, ON AVERAGE, do lag their peers. Roughly a half of ADHDers don't finish high school...although a good chunk of that is because of behaviour. --scuro (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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


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


 * Who are "we"? Who appointed "we?" as guardians odf this entry? What right does this "we" have to exclude important truths from a Wikipedia entry, and to insist that partisan, contentious opinions are asserted ( and presented to the uninformed reader) as settled facts? You have a special nerve, advancing 'NPOV' as an argument in this matter . The article as edited by me takes a completely neutral point of view between those who believe in this and those who don't. I have deleted precisely nothing of the pro-ADHD argument, merely modified its assertions so as to make clear that they remain matters of opinion rather than fact, and balanced them with the opinions of those who oppose the theory. Attempts to classify the opinion you dislike as 'fringe' are pure ad hominem, prejudicial, without value and illegitimate in serious argument. How do you know who will eventually win this debate? Many major scientific and medical theories have at some point in their lives been held by a minority, and often a despised minority. Many subsequently discredited positions have been held by a triumphalist majority. As for threatening to have me blocked from editing, please do go ahead and try. I am very happy to take this to the highest available authority in Wikipedia, in order to ensure that the truth is not censored.  Threats of this kind are no substitute for argument. What are you trying to explain to me? That you're right and I'm wrong? Are you? Where is your objective proof, your train of logic?  You don't know that,cannot prove it by evidence or the rules of debate and have no business insisting that your personal view, however passionately held, should be given primacy over my equally legitimate one. So you reach for the censor's blue pencil, the last resort of those without an argument. The whole point of my edits is to show that the subject is one on which doctors and scientists differ. This is a contentious issue. It is simply wrong to present it as if were settled. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We refers to those who support the current consensus about this article. You keep inserting a bunch of weasel words, which is unhelpful. There is already an entire article about the controversy surrounding ADHD. It covers the arguments quite well. -- Versa  geek  22:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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


 * Medical science and reliable sources specifically indicate that this is fact, not opinion. If Peter wants the world to reject the idea of ADHD, then he needs to propose those ideas to the medical community, and properly back up those claims. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Ned Scott 00:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fair to make note of the controversy earlier in the article than we do now (using appropriate wording) then, either source & reword those "critic's say" sentences that I tried to integrate under the diagnosis header or remove them. -- Versa geek  01:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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

Here is an example (of the fact that controversy isn't just "in the minds of antipsych critics and religious groups.."): "There is no escaping the fact that ADHD remains a controversial diagnosis, however. Some health practitioners believe it is under-diagnosed in the UK, and that children are going without the help and support they need in order to make the most of their education and life chances; other practitioners fear it is being over-diagnosed, and some have serious doubts about or even reject the concept of ADHD altogether." From a government website Ancadi (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


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


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


 * I'm appalled by the way people who writes serious arguments are being treated. Clockback, you are right and I'm very sorry that you are being treated this way.

Once again: it's clear who are the people that take care of the Medical Editors Articles of Wikipedia. It must go to the medias because when people search the Web for ADHD the first article is Wikipedia. It has to stop.--Justana (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

Majorities do not decide scientific truth, and nor does fashion

 * You don't get it, do you? More ad hominem abuse, and more threats. No actual arguments, except one for my side that you didn't intend to make. Once again, I beg you, on bended knee, to report me to arbitration, or whoever it is you imagine will award these 'strikes' against me. I long for a disinterested person to enter this matter. Do you?  You don't like Dr Baughman. Too bad.  Every one of your contributions strengthens my case, packed as they are with ad hominem venom, and empty as they are of arguments about the issue at stake. I'm also touched and pleased ( as you somehow didn't foresee that I would be)  by your admission of the rightness of my most fundamental point, that there is no objective test for the presence of this complaint(I do not use the word 'disease' to refer to 'ADHD' for this very reason). But shouldn't this distinction be made clear, from the start to the lay reader and worried parent who will be the most important reader of this entry? You say :"Disorders are disorders because if there was a known medical test for the condition they would be diseases". Well, exactly. Thanks very much. This is the only point I wish to make. On it hangs everything else that I say, and all the edits which I have been trying to make and which you and others have repeatedly struck down, using a mysterious authority which you have arrogated to yourselves.  If you would make the point that there is no objective test for 'ADHD' in the opening paragraph, then I would be more or less happy, except that all the subsequent references to 'ADHD' would then need to be qualified, as I have repeatedly sought to qualify them.  In which case the entire article, with its false assumption of scientific certainty, its (weaselly)repetitive use of the passive "considered by" needs to be edited to restore objectivity.  I may not like the advocates of ADHD either, but the point about them is not that they are nice, brilliant, biased or whatever, or the opposite, or that any of them may or may take money from whoever they do or do not take money from. The point about them is that they have a subjective theory they cannot prove, on the basis of which millions of children are being given powerful objective drugs. As I said above, if the 'treatment' for 'ADHD' were as vague and nebulous as the diagnosis, I wouldn't worry. But it isn't. It is the mismatch between the two which is so important.
 * Yet again, let me point out to you the simple, unquestionable fact that scientific truth is not and cannot be a question of minority or majority, or of how fashionable an idea happens to be at any given time, or there'd never be any scientific progress. Orthodoxy always has the advantage, which often delays the arrival of the truth. If I were you I certainly wouldn't get into where the various camps in this argument get money from. I don't deny that Dr Baughman is biased. Of course he is. He doesn't deny it. So am I. I say I am. But my edits were deliberately restrained, and limited to attaining neutrality between the two sides in the controversy. The difference is that I am conscious of my bias, and of that of the witness I adduce, but you seem to think that you are immune from any partiality, and that your witnesses are likewise wholly disinterested and without partisanship. Don't be silly. Nor do I maintain that Dr Baughman is a flawless human being. The point is that he is a qualified neurologist(are you?), and an experienced paediatrician (are you?), and he offers scientifically verifiable criticisms of the diagnosis of 'ADHD'. You have stated above that you accept his single most important contention, that there is no objective test for the presence of 'ADHD'. I would of course welcome it if other doctors joined him (and now you) in large numbers. Many scientists are certainly highly doubtful of the diagnosis . But does it cross your mind to wonder whether there are any reasons, other than the ones that you cite, why they don't?  As for "good reliable sources which state the diagnosis of ADHD is a controversy", I don't have far to seek. Wikipedia itself has an article on this very controversy. How do we go to arbitration now? You seem very keen to do so, but never actually do. In that case, please allow me to do so.  But as a novice in these matters, I need to be told how to set about it. Can you, or someone else, tell me what steps I should take? Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


 * One point: those undoing your edits are subject to the same reversion limits. If you think they are violating 3RR, warn them, and consider filing a complaint. I doubt that they are, but do realize that even *one* revert in one day can be considered excessive, particularly if it's edit warring, it is up to admin discretion. What I saw of your contributions, though, is that they did not satisfy Wikipedia standards for sourcing and balance, and *anyone* may revert such contributions on sight, generally. *Discuss* possibly controversial changes in Talk *before* making them to the article. Yes, you can be bold, but also be aware that bold editors better know what they are doing. On the other side, you get to make lots of mistakes without consequence *usually*. Refusing to learn from mistakes, though, will get you in trouble everywhere, not merely on Wikipedia.
 * --Abd (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

I am not sure any of you are reading what I am saying. I am taking this seriously. I have not touched the entry for days and await proposals for a modification. What are you all waiting for? The faults of the existing entry are clear under Wikipedia's own rules - an absence of NPOV on the two sides of the controversy, and the extraordinarily pervasive use of weasel words, especially the passive voice, in the article. It is absurd to pretend that no controversy exists ( several British journalists have written critically about this theory, and about the mass prescription of methylphenidate) and monstrous to belittle dissenters by classifying them as 'fringe', solely on the grounds that you don't agree with them. I have made my arguments quite plain. All orthodoxies dismiss their opponents as 'fringe'. That is what orthodoxies do. Dr Baughman's critique of the ADHD lobby's attempt to provide the objective evidence it knows it needs ( and cannot get) is contained in his book 'The ADHD Fraud' which I am sure he would make available on line. Please stop lecturing me about my many undoubted faults, and come up with some proposals, sooner rarther than later. I do not know what 'the question of a subjective diagnosis was brought up by you' means, or is intended to signify. Of course I brought it up. I brought it up because it is crucial to the argument,objective diagnosis being the general rule in medicine, and goes unmentioned in the article. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont see any NPOV issue, I do however see an huge anti-ADHD bias in your argument/source.Landcamera900 (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

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


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



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


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

A number of editors have claimed that there is a controversy with ADHD as a disorder. I have asked several times here in talk for a good reliable citation that demonstrates this contention. What national health institution, legal judgement, scientific body, or higher institute of learning recognizes that ADHD is a controversial diagnosis or controversial condition? These are the pillars of society and I have yet to see any pillar of society seriously question ADHD. The clear avoidance of providing a citation or even responding to this citation request is a glaring omission on the part of editors demanding change to the article. Communication is part of consensus building.--21:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuro (talk • contribs)


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


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

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


 * We don't have to solve notability issues in advance. Indeed, all attempts to create fixed standards are seriously provisional and subject to hosts of exceptions. The lawsuits are certainly of interest and, indeed, they should be reported, possibly even in this article. However, mind-reading of the withdrawing plaintiffs would not be allowed! Perhaps they ran out of money..... again, is there reliable source for this? What I find problematic about Scuro's expressed position is that it seems to be attempting to convince us or Clockback that there there is no sense in even trying. I'd rather wait for response from Clockback or others, and then see what to make of it. Otherwise it becomes a version of "Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up." Clockback, Scuro does not control the article. He or she is an editor just like you and me. He does happen to be closer to expressing Wikipedia policy, *but policy does not make content decisions,* it guides process. Content decisions are made by editors. Each of us. However, if we want our decisions to stand, we'd better seek consensus or they will disappear quickly! --Abd (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


 * In fact, though, physical tests for ADHD are, as far as I know, highly controversial. My guess is that *some* physical differences are likely to exist, for it's become apparent to me that we think differently than normal people, and I'd be surprised if this does not show up in some way, in some possible measure of synapse count or distribution. I make associations that most people will miss, *in some areas*, while missing associations that others will easily recognize and respond to. My guess, again, is that objective tests will be developed, eventually. Most likely, though, they will be behavioral in some way, like an intelligence test. It is not impossible that genetic components will be clearly identified, which would then lead to genetic testing to identify it, I don't know what the state of research is on this -- and I'm sure that it will all be contested. There are a *lot* of people who are highly resistant to the concept of a physical basis for the disorder, often because it's asserted as some kind of moral failing, with the "disorder" appellation being merely an elaborate excuse for bad behavior. These kinds of ideas can take a *very* long time to dissipate, long after general scientific opinion has shifted. (It's like "race." Probably most people "believe" in race as a physical reality, even though that has been debunked quite effectively for a very long time, and, watch, when this is mentioned it's pretty common for someone to pop in with, "But it's *obviously* a physical reality...." Let's just say that this argument is not for this Talk page, I'm merely giving an example that is clear to me of the persistence of myth.
 * --Abd (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Finally, a little more on FRINGE.


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


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


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


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


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


 * But, it's true. You did not ask me for advice. Suit yourself.
 * --Abd (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

First draft for suggested rewrite of Article
Here is a first draft for a suggested improved version of entry. It's by no means finished, and there is a severe technical mess at the beginning where I can;'t seem to get the (rather important)text between the references to appear. It's readable if you go into edit mode, but not currently on the page) Can a more skilled person please help? but I would hope it would form a basis for reasoned discussion.  I have not yet dealt with the controversy over whether brain differences measure pre-existing states, or simply chart the fact that some people have different brains because of the way they use them. I'd be delighted if someone else could tackle this particularly contentious passage, but if not will get round to it myself in time. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC) :
 * Do you honestly think this is better? You simply dressed up your weasel words, I mean really it's not fooling anyoneLandcamera900 (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

(ref)

should be (ref)(/ref)

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

and text goes on as normal.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft moved to a subpage, please edit the subpage -- Versa geek  21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, no way. -- Ned Scott 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose of an encyclopaedic article is to present the mainstream viewpoint, with some reference to less well known controversy. This particular draft is primarily the controversy, with side reference to the mainstream view.--Vannin (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


 * Another approach is to require reliable source for claims you find suspect....
 * --Abd (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I think you should recognise that this is your interpretation of a rhetorical statement by Baughman, rather than his intended meaning, or an indisputable interpretation of it which could be agreed on by all readers or hearers - and certainly not the silver bullet for which you seek. You have freighted it with a lot of words he doesn't use, plus an implication of your own that you admit is tentative. You're entitled to to do that in argument, but your interpretation remains your view, not a fact. His purpose is clear to me from the context in which I saw this said ( in his book 'The ADHD Fraud') He is arguing that a patient, hitherto in all respects physically normal and without physical symptoms of any kind, becomes abnormal only when they take the drug. The (rhetorical and propagandist) point is that those claiming to offer a cure for abnormality are in fact creating it. This subject does create very strong feelings in its opposing partisans, as this page reveals. Baughman is both advocate and medic. Where he is dealing with science, I believe he is scrupulous.Where he is a propagandist, he uses high-octane language (often higherthan I personally would wish, and I'm no stranger to high-octane language myself). But I do not think you have established that he has let his feelings lead him into mistakes of fact. PH logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Denial is not just a river in EgyptLandcamera900 (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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


 * My congratulations to Landcamera900 for knowing what a thesaurus is, though I very much doubt that Clockback, who is a professional writer, needs one. Now that each of you has poked the other in the eye, let's return to editing the article. But one more point. An uncivil edit, struck through, remains an uncivil edit unless the strikethrough edit apologizes. Otherwise it could be a mere pretense at civility, insulting while setting up a defense against being called on it. It would have been cleaner, since the strikethrough edit was immediate and there had been no response, to delete the offensive phrase (with apology in the summary). Otherwise there is an obvious suspicion that the intention to insult remained. --Abd (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Let me repeat one crucial part of this: no statement may be made in the introduction which is not properly sourced in the article. "Many believe" or "some believe" are weasel words that can't properly be used unless the sources in the article *come to that conclusion*. Theoretically, our interpretation of the sources that synthesizes such an opinion from them is original research, which can't be used. (There are exceptions, but, bottom line, they aren't legitimately controversial, the true basic question being, "Can a reader verify what is asserted from the source?" and synthetic claims from many sources are probably not okay.) On the other hand, *practically*, synthesis is done all the time, and if the editors agree on it, the "police" are very unlikely to intervene. So *do not* start with the introduction. That's backwards. Fix the article first, and, as I've pointed out, the first article to fix is the Controversy about ADHD article, it will be easier.
 * --Abd (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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

Existence of controversy should be in the lead
per Wikipedia guidelines. So I added it. NuclearWinner (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * I plan to make the edit.

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

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


 * Good that scuro is trying to follow the logic. I write a lot, but even then, the point hasn't been sufficiently made, or the extra explanations conceal the point. Asking about what's unclear is the obvious solution! No, these are different words with different connotations, a "disorder" is a kind of "condition." Conditions can be positive or negative. There was very good return for usage of "condition," actually, though I didn't do a full formal analysis. Anyone can repeat my searches, that's why I gave the exact search text. What's "common sense," here? The word "condition" has *massive* usage, and finesses the controversy. Critics can still claim there is no real "condition," but ... at this point, indeed, common sense must intervene! Note that I made no attempt, nor do I support one, to remove the word "disorder." After all, it's in the *name*, whether it's ADHD or ADD. Sources use it. If there is widely used terminology that finesses a dispute, I'd say it's advisable to use it. My *personal* opinion, though, colored by the fact that I have ADHD and it is not a marginal diagnosis (and it has been confirmed by four different professionals, three of whom are the best I've ever seen in their fields, and I can be *murder* as a patient. I have a tendency to think for myself!) is that "condition" says it best, because, as many point out, there are advantages to having ADHD. It's a free pass to goof off! (Seriously, that's what my wife thinks, and her opinion is common among spouses of adults with ADHD.) What's *really* an advantage, for some of us, is an ability to think outside the box, probably related to the hyperfocus that is common. ADHD is a condition that can be, in some ways, disabling or socially or personally pathological, particularly if unrecognized and untreated. Thus it is a disorder, clearly. Disorder does not imply physical difference, software can be disordered and the effect on computer performance can be just as bad as hardware failure. But how one fixes it would be different. The harm of poorly-written software can be *ameliorated* by speeding up the hardware, i.e., drugs may help even if the problem isn't "physical." Etc. Now, if User:Scuro can come up with contrary references, references indicating that the controversy -- or "divergent views" -- is *not* notable, we then have a balance issue on a new level. Shoe's now on the other foot, Scuro.


 * Note that my edits to the intro were reverted by Scuro, arguing that "controversy" wasn't a word used in the source. I could have reverted his edit, but that would start to approach edit warring and 3RR. So I, instead, replaced the text *responding to Scuro's complaint,* which is exactly what we are supposed to do. I discovered language with broad support that *might* resolve some of the dispute -- for editors with good faith -- and used it.


 * Scuro has removed the paragraph in the introduction about "divergent views." He's violating guidelines in doing this. The material was reliably sourced. He argued, of course, that this did not belong in the introduction. But if that is true, it *does* belong in the article, there is definitely sufficient notability for that, so the proper remedy would be -- if the claim is true about the introduction -- to move it, not to delete it. Deleting sourced material is a big red flag for POV-pushing.

I'll add to this: Barrylb (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At http://www.mental.health.wa.gov.au/one/resource/7/adhd%20policy.pdf they say in the Introduction: "ADHD is a behavioural syndrome in which symptoms of hyperactivity and/or inattention negatively effect a person’s social, academic and/or occupational functioning."


 * "Behavioral syndrome" is another usage that finesses the controversy, and it is sourced, so it's certainly usable in the article. That's actually a very good definition, I support it being in the article. It is *far* more informative than what currently leads, which is a confusing mess, so, if I have time. Note that if we spell out ADHD in the lead, the word "disorder" is in there. "Behavioral syndrome" does not rule out physical cause, because physical disorders can lead to behavioral syndromes. Rabies. But ADHD is diagnosed behaviorally, and we don't have many "objective" ways of testing behavior. That could change, eventually.... --Abd (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Scuro edited the intro phrase to "Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), or Hyperkinetic Disorder as officially known in the UK (though ADHD is more commonly used), is generally considered to be a neurobehavioural developmental disorder.

So ... ADH Disorder is a disorder. Sure. Why repeat the word? It's bad writing, basically, and it just isn't necessary in the intro. ADHD is more than a developmental disorder, The NINDS article, in the lead, doesn't call it a "developmental disorder." It uses that term later in the article, and it is referring to the disorder in *children.* See above, where I went over the language. I chose "neurobehavioral condition" because condition is, in fact, a term which includes disorders, it is neutral, it does not suppose pathology -- part of the whole controversy --, it doesn't require the weasel words "generally considered" that Scuro inserted, it is justified by substantial sources, though it is not the majority usage.

I changed it back to "neurobehavioral condition," and took out the "generally considered." Does Scuro want to give undue weight to the controversy?

Looking over the intro, I see that it's poorly written in another way. The qualifications about terminology really whack the flow of text, making it hard to read. I'll fix that. --Abd (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

More wiki policy - reliable source guidelines
Some have questioned why their sources are not considered the best in this ongoing discussion. Here are the Wiki guidelines. WP:SOURCES
 * ''Reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


 * If it should be removed from the lead, that does not mean it should be removed from the article. However, it appears that Scuro did remove it. This is approaching edit warring. Removing sourced material from articles is, unless there is *clear* reason, POV-pushing if it supports a POV, and this clearly does. The point about whether or not the controversy is sufficiently notable to be in the introduction is not an easy one to resolve with one or two sources, it will take time. But cutting it out entirely, no. There is a Controversy section in this article, and it could be moved there; that Scuro didn't do this begins to raise suspicions that his goal is not a balanced article but the elimination of a notable point of view; I hope that's not the case.--Abd (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a controversy section in this article? I haven't had time to check the article with all the new edits. Basically I'm simply trying to keep up with talk and follow what is happening on the page and I can't keep up. If you like I can move it into the con. section, but then I will appeal to have it removed. The BJP article is clearly not notable...in the intro or any other section to cite for controversy.--scuro (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The BJP article does provide some evidence of controversy, although we cannot simply look at it in isolation. Look at all the references I have provided before finalizing your conclusions about the existence and extent of any controversy. I note that we now have references from a number of sources: mainstream media coverage, coverage in professional journals and conferences, government policy, and books. Barrylb (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) There is plenty of evidence that there is notable controversy. If any editor thinks not, then I'd suggest that the editor read WP:AfD and follow the process, it *will* make a decision; my guess is that it would be a "lively discussion" and that consensus would be to Keep. (And if the closing admin decides to delete the article, I'm sure there would be a Deletion Review, and if that fails, that this would go to further process.). So, please, unless you've got the willingness to back it up with process, stop claiming that controversy isn't notable. However, there does remain the question of balance. It is a reasonable position that it does not belong in the introduction; however, putting it there means that we don't need to go over the rest of the article with a fine-tooth comb, all at once.

The fact is that the introduction is a mess, see below for part of the problem, about the references. The main problem is that a read who doesn't know what ADHD is likely to be quite confused by the intro. I didn't make this up, this comment has been made before by at least one other. It's obvious. One of the editors, here, quoted a definition of ADHD that was less controversial than what we had, was clear and to the point, far better than what we have there now. Our present intro is longer than most, more complicated than most. With controversial subjects, intros are often very brief because it is easier to find consensus on a brief statement than on more complex ones. --Abd (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

If anyone doubts the existence of a controversy I have found news articles to back that up: A quote from an interviewee: "There is controversy about ADHD, I believe, partly because we are using a medication to treat the disorder, and people find that to be of concern." Title: "Controversy continues over treatment of ADHD" From the introduction: "Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, is one of the most controversial topics in kid's health today." Federal Opposition health spokesperson: "Given the controversy surrounding ADHD..." Barrylb (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/experts/exist.html
 * http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2002/s519060.htm
 * http://www.abc.net.au/health/library/stories/2003/04/24/1828304.htm
 * http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21989550-5001021,00.html


 * Your last citation was about the controversy of a review, not ADHD. The PBS dude talks about what he believes could be a controversy. The other citations really are not that notable. Why does not one national health organization in the world label it controversial? How about a scientific body? Zilich. So who or what group makes the minority opinion that believes that ADHD is controversial? The rags and internet sites that have bouncy girls tucked away inside?--scuro (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually in the last citation, I believe the spokesperson could be talking in general terms about ADHD, not about the review. Anyway, the citations are sufficient to demonstrate there is controversy. There may not be a lot of talk in scientific journals but that doesn't mean the controversy doesn't exist. In all the references I provided people are talking about it. Barrylb (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are two references from the scientific community: From the abstract: "ADHD and its treatment have remained controversial" From the introduction: "We believe that the current controversy about diagnosis and management of these children's symptoms arises from the divergent perspectives of developmentally and non-developmentally minded professionals"
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10673829?dopt=Abstract National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
 * http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/177_10_181102/hal10365_fm.html Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children: moving forward with divergent perspectives

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

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

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

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

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


 * I have no doubt you can find ooodles of citations about ADHD and controversy. The question is are they noteworthy? ADHD seems to attract social critics like no other topic does, and I'd hazard to guess none of the SC are important and qualified enough to be considered as as minority opinion on a topic like, is the diagnosis of ADHD controversial. Would you cite Dr. Phil? He certainly has an opinion. One of your citations did catch my attention. I've been way to busy simply trying to keep up with "new talk" and article changes to look at it. More later.--scuro (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If, and by your own admisssion, "ADHD seems too attract social critics like no other topic does", it seems to me that that warrants a good discussion of the controversy in the article. I have many doctors in my family, and they all think very poorly about the whole ADHD business. It just doesn't seem reasonable to me to contend that the controversy is so scant. I think Clockback is right here. Scuro needs to stop being so arrogant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.153.23 (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Our job is to describe whatever controversy there is. If you think that they should be called "social critics" then so be it - we could use that term in the article (not that I necessarily think we should). I believe I have provided enough reliable references to demonstrate there is something worth mentioning. Barrylb (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Another reference: From Introduction: "Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a controversial syndrome. Debate has raged in Australia and other countries over the condition itself, its prevalence and, in particular, over the use of medication to treat ADHD." Barrylb (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb02.htm Medication for Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): an analysis by Federal Electorate


 * Right. Now, the place to put this, *first*, is in the body of the article and not in the intro. The intro should be a brief summary of what is described in detail in the article. More on this below. --Abd (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

citations and citation requests in the intro
Are not citations and citation requests to be avoided in the intro? They should be in the main body of the article where the points are touched upon. --scuro (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, citations are common in introductions. Barrylb (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If I find the policy, does anyone have any objection if I removed the ever expanding and ridiculous number of citation requests in the intro?--scuro (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality.


 * May I suggest that the combined 16 citation requests and citations in the intro is going overboard? Perhaps some of the citation request happy editors could remove all but the most necessary requests and place then into the main body where they belong.--scuro (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If claims in the introduction repeat sourced claims in the article, then references are not required in the intro. However, often editors will try to summarize what is in the article, and summarization can introduce POV bias. If the summarization is new, i.e, not explicitly made deeper in the article it must be sourced unless it is consensus that the summary is fair. Scuro here is focusing on the presence or absence of citations, when the fundamental point is that the text must be sourced. If Scuro or any editor feels that a citation tag in the intro isn't necessary because the material is elsewhere in the article, he is certainly welcome to move the tag, or to delete it if the deeper material is properly referenced. What Scuro is missing, apparently, is that placing a cn tag is a cooperative way to begin to resolve issues with the article, it avoids edit warring.

I would really encourage Scuro to read the piece of guideline that he quoted carefully. "editorial consensus." If he starts to actively seek that consensus, instead of simply insisting on his POV, we will make progress. This is not to deny that he has shown some willingness to compromise, he has. But other actions are contentious and not likely to resolve *our* controversy. --Abd (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I will no longer respond to Abds' posts until he stops his personal judgments of other editors. Talk is to focus on content. He makes assumptions, places blame, reads minds.... it is all negative, against wiki policy and I will no longer respond until I see a change in his behaviour. --scuro (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

the definition of controversy and how it relates to Wikipedia
From the Oxford dictionary

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

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

In summary for the addition of the word controversy into an article you would want:
 * -to clearly define what exactly is controversial
 * -to show that this is an ongoing debate that continues into the present
 * -that both sides of the debate would fall in either majority or minority opinion on a topic
 * -that you can clearly identify who or what group makes up the minority opinion.

Without qualifiers vertually any topic can be shown to be controversial.
 * Controversy and underpants 47000 hits.
 * Controversy and gardening 276000 hits.
 * Controversy and doves 76000 hits.
 * Controversy and "being kind" 28000 hits.--scuro(talk) 02:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"A prolonged argument or dispute. esp. when conducted publicly and over a matter of opinion." There is a lot of that over ADHD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.153.23 (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the assertion above (about what controversy is )just show where the problem lies? Why should this user be able to rule on what 'controversy' is, above and beyond the dictionary definition? Whence comes his authority to do so? (If he wants a controversy about controversy, let's open a Wikipedia article on 'Controversy' and perhaps he can engage himself in a dispute about whether there is any controversy about controversy. Hours of harmless fun might ensue). Having reproduced the dictionary definition, he must have observed that this clearly and unambiguously shows that there is a controversy over 'ADHD'. So he has come up with a definition of his own that might conceivably be used to claim that there is not. He may have his opinions on the matter, but these do not entitle him to remove a truthful and accurate statement from the entry, again and again, demanding a rigour in critics and sceptics of 'ADHD' which is wholly inconsistent with the lack of rigour in the article he so manfully defends against those sceptics. He should just admit that there is a controversy, and stop reverting edits which make this clear. His energies would be far better devoted to cleaning up the woeful article about 'ADHD', still crammed with pseudoscientific assertions and weasel words. A question to an expert. Several different users have separately made changes to this article ( all of the same kind and with the same intent, namely to ensure that it declares prominently that the diagnosis of 'ADHD' is controversial) and all have separately been reverted. If those users combined, agreed on a text and references for controversy, and posted it, and it was then reverted, could they each *separately* re-revert it without breaching the rules? And would anyone else be within the rules to re-re-revert it more than the permissible number of times, in this case? Just asking. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes we could.. but that would probably come under 'Gaming the system' and not a good idea. Barrylb (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

BY the way (let's not get it mixed up with the main argument) isn't the introduction of a comparison with 'Holocaust Deniers' wholly outrageous and completely disgraceful? First: There is enormous objective evidence of the Holocaust, its planning and its operation, from documents, corroborated witnesses, survivors, trials of perpetrators, surviving installations. Those who deny that it took place are delusional and politically motivated, as well as being morally deficient. Second, there is no such objective evidence of the existence of 'ADHD', which remains a matter of opinion without any scientific test to determine its presence in any human body. thus permitting reasonable people to question its existence. Third, the use of the comparison itself is not merely wholly unjustified by the context, but stinks of the lowest form of ad hominem attack. If 'official warnings' are being handed out, perhaps the author of this illegitimate and baseless remark might be served with one. I argue hard, and don't at all mind when people argue hard back, but this is beyond the limits. PH signed in as Clockback (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is my citation about controversy and adhd. It's from Dr. Phil http://www.myadhd.com/october2004.html. He is a Dr., he is more well known then any other expert on adhd. Shouldn't we lead with him? How about this entry, While no scientific body or international health institution believes that ADHD is a controversial disorder, Dr. Phil, some religious groups and Scientologists in particular, and many other social critics believe that ADHD is controversial. This places the controversy in context and does not give undue weight on the topic. You can insert that now if you wish and you would have my blessings.


 * But...if you have watched Dr. Phil then you know he is a blowhard who is often clueless on the topics he discusses. He is not objective and he is no authority on this subject. Contrary to what Clockback states, ADHD is the most studied childhood disorder ever, and there are reams and reams of objective studies and reviews on this issue. Generally you are running around like chickens with your heads cut off. I've given you a clear set of criteria. If for no other purpose, simply use these criteria so that you don't waste a lot of our time going down fruitless avenues. To start with, what exactly is the controversy. Can you all agree upon that? Is the controversy everything to do with ADHD because the disorder is fake?--scuro (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the kind of uncivil discussion that needs to stop. It's not to the level of "personal attack," at least not against another editor, but to call a public figure, quoted by another editor, a "blowhard," and "clueless," is irrelevant, therefore unnecessary, contentious, and such argument is likely to inflame a dispute rather than to resolve it. "You are running around like chickens with your heads cut off" is, however, a possibly insulting comment -- even if true in some respects." There are quite a number of editors involved, and they are not in agreement *yet* about what to do. There is one editor seriously blocking article improvement toward NPOV. There are others who don't know, yet, how to deal with the problem, and others who can only address one issue at a time -- and that's promptly reverted by another editor. The editor "community" here *has* no head, so of course it resembles the proverbial headless chicken. Individuals, though, are trying to work out some compromise or to express some POV, and being coherent in that could either be helpful or harmful.


 * As to the controversy, there are many controversies. There is controversy over the definition of the condition and its diagnosis, such controversy results in large variations in estimates of frequency. A *few* claim that the syndrome is a fantasy, but many others claim that diagnosis is based on vague or over-broad subjective criteria. (Most *practical* medicine is based on subjective assessments not easily amenable to "measurement" or "objective tests," though there is no bright line between subjective and objective.) Then, given that there is a condition -- or, more likely, that ADHD is a family of conditions with overlapping symptoms -- there is argument over its etiology or causes. In fact, that there is more than one cause is known, for there are physical conditions which cause some of the ADHD symptoms, and the only reason we know these are different is that a known physical cause exists (plus there may be some differences in manifestation). Then, there is the argument whether the problem is "biologically based." I find this a bit puzzling, since all human behavior is "biological," and, in particular, memory and learned responses are physically encoded in neural interconnections. I suspect that this debate is really a form of the old debate about spirit vs. matter, though it might, more simply be a version of what happens when the computer we bought doesn't work properly. The hardware manufacturer says the problem is software, and the software company says there must be a problem with the hardware. With computers, though, there is a more clear difference between hardware and software: software must be loaded every time the computer is booted. But then there is firmware, which is *hardware* encoded just as much as the CPU is hardware. And then, there is the most widespread dispute about treatment, which gets even more contentious when the question is treating small children with controlled substances.


 * (Those who are practically screaming about prescribing dangerous drugs to small children don't usually mention that the treatment of ADHD with, say, Ritalin, typically involves very small doses. I take Ritalin, and I chip it, break the smallest available dose in half. I take the smallest available extended release form of Ritalin (18 mg Concerta), once per day, then, in the morning, supplement it with 5 mg of generic methylphenidate, and sometimes I take another 5 mg later in the day. One of the treatment errors that may be common is giving too much; that's what happened to me ten years ago and I immediately rejected the drug. One way of putting this is that this cost me ten years of disorder. The general state of the art is very poor, in fact, and I only found better help by really seeking out experts, I have no wonder that there is such heavy criticism of the psychiatric profession. This does not, however, make me antipsychiatric, for any professional position can be abused and badly conducted, and sometimes this happens systemically -- i.e., it's common -- for a while.)


 * The above is simply not a serious response to either of my points above. I have no idea who 'Dr Phil' is and no interest either. I have no doubt that we could find a blowhard to believes 'ADHD' is uncontroversial, and plenty of blowhards who think that it exists because they say it does. My e-mail inbox is full of them. They would not alter the case made by others, more reputable,  for the same positions.  So what?  I and plenty of others have cited several qualified and notable sources for controversy about 'ADHD', which have been wrongly reverted. 'ADHD' may be widely 'studied', and is, but this has no bearing on the lack of evidence for its existence. This response evades the question of whether it exists at all.  It still lacks any objective chemical, biological, biochemical, neurological or chemical definition and there is no objective test for its presence or absence in a human person. Its supporters know this is a failing, which is why they seek constnatly for such a test, and do not find it.  He presumably never replies to this point because he knows it to be true.  He hasn't 'given' us a clear set of criteria for the common benefit (oh, thanks!), but seeks to impose on us a set of criteria which he has made up himself without authority. There are many controversies about 'ADHD', all of which stem from its original sin, its lack of an objective diagnosis, but which vary from doubts about the diagnosis or prescription, and doubts about whether an objective biochemical prescription can follow a subjective diagnosis,  to outright challenges to its existence. It is idle to pretend he doesn't know this.  It is also an absurd line on which to dig a last ditch defensive line. It must fall, once enough disinterested people ( and I repeat my plea for declarations of interest here)  get involved in editing this page. Nobody seeks to remove the case made for the existence of 'ADHD'. That has to be shown in full, in natural justice and the pursuit of knowledge. The argument is about qualifying it.  He has also failed to withdraw the disgraceful 'Holocaust denier' smear, a remarkable failing in one so keen to criticise other people for what he believes to be attacks on him or alleged attempts to read his mind. I am enjoined to 'assume good faith'. Can anyone understand why I might be finding this hard?

PH signed in as Clockback (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." The promise though, is not "that anyone can easily edit and see the edits survive." It's hard. AGF is difficult, and, in fact, what it requires sometimes is to *pretend* that you are assuming good faith. I.e., if it looks like an opponent is a tool of the drug companies, sent here to keep the article in some preferred state, we do *not* make that accusation. It would probably be wrong, anyway, for people can take idiotic positions for all kinds of reasons. Much of the difficulty here can be ascribed to the fact that most Wikipedia editors, those who very regularly edit, are very young, probably the highest percentage are college students, who may have access to a research library. College is a time for some where the person starts to take strong positions, and to develop a whole structure of rationalizations for those positions, they become "true believers" in this or that. It takes time, generally, with exceptions, to start to develop more balance, more recognition that no one "position" represents absolute truth, and, thus, to recognize the full implications of NPOV. The *truth* is NPOV, but some think that this means that there is a "true" POV. Usually their own. No, NPOV is the closest that we, as very limited observers and thinkers, can come to truth, collectively, and while we may go further than that *personally,* this is not something that, by its nature, can be proven. Ahem. If we focus on the process, we will improve the article. If we keep tossing content at each other, not much will happen, and what *does* happen, if we have some small success, it will fall apart as new editors arrive who haven't been a part of it. I.e., suppose we pursue process against some editor who seems to be in the way, and manage to get him blocked. Someone else will take his place. We must resolve the textual problem with consensus, involving such editors, probably, or whatever we do will not endure. (But what if he is a dedicated POV-pusher? Will never agree to anything? Well, first of all, I don't know that, and even if I did, but could not prove it, AGF requires that I assume otherwise. Assume that my "personally conclusive evidence" is wrong, that he actually is trying to keep a good, NPOV article, and that if we can come up with proper sourcing and proper positioning, he will at least stand aside. --Abd (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

CB, please stick to the topic at hand. The issue is what exactly is the controversy? Can you define it, and can a consensus of editors agree with your definition? You wouldn't require my input for that consensus to stick. I have given a defintion. You could remove the Dr. Phil reference and it would still hold true: ''' "While no scientific body or international health institution believes that ADHD is a controversial disorder, many social critics and some religious groups, Scientologists in particular, believe that ADHD is controversial." ''' Please don't make this an issue about personalities and how hard this is for you.--scuro (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This editor has been editing this article for a year, and related articles. He was just given, above, references to peer-reviewed journals and other reliable sources showing *expert* critics. The statement about "no scientific body or international health institution believes" is a negative one. Does he have a source for it, or did he make it up. Sometimes we might make a statement like that when it is apparent that something does not exist; but it is much more solid if some reliable source makes that claim, because this will have been subject to review by those likely to be aware of contrary fact. Saying "Scientologists" in particular, tars the entire class of those who criticize any aspect of ADHD as fringe, which is blatant nonsense. There is a "cabal" of editors here who are dedicated to removing fringe opinion from Wikipedia. They can be quite enthusiastic and persistent about it, and it's not uncommon that they go too far. The question here is notability, and fringe opinion that is notable belongs on Wikipedia, though it must be handled with caution and balance. But we aren't really concerned with fringe opinion at this point. Controversy over ADHD is above the level of fringe opinion, it is merely that there is a lot of fringe opinion that is critical.


 * Editors may describe how hard things are for them. This is Talk. Yes, it can be off-topic, but this is also a community, and collegiality is important. The proper response to too much talk is not to respond to it, for it simply trolls for more talk. Want to be really disruptive? Tell others to stop expressing what they feel. --Abd (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

''Want to be really disruptive? Tell others to stop expressing what they feel.'' - do that or judge them and their thought processes.--scuro (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. Bad habit. Sometimes, however, both pots and kettles are black and it's certainly tempting to mention it. Some pots and kettles explode when described accurately, some explode when the description is sufficiently close to the truth, which is why it can be disruptive. Others just sit there. Fresh snow, called "black," doesn't melt down at the thought, it doesn't even heat up. --Abd (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets focus on the ball. At the start of this thread I asked: To start with, what exactly is the controversy. Can you all agree upon that? Is the controversy everything to do with ADHD because the disorder is fake? Later on this thread the same questions are asked again: The issue is what exactly is the controversy? Can you define it, and can a consensus of editors agree with your definition? May I remind everyone that Point #7 from the principles of Wiki etiquette is: Don't ignore questions. Some answers would really be appreciated.


 * I hear things like, "Controversy over ADHD is above the level of fringe opinion", but how do we know that? As mentioned earlier there is a heck of a lot of controversy related articles to gardening on the internet yet I don't see the word controversy anywhere on the gardening page. Make your case about controversy, if it is so obviously before our noses, the answers should flow like water.--scuro (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that I feel like we'll be forever answering your questions, and each time you'll set new criteria for inclusion and we'll never get anywhere. There are answers to your questions but I'm not going to make the effort to spell them out if it is just to satisfy your whims. I want to know that this debate will end sometime. Have you considered Abd's comments about what would happen if we sent Controversy about ADHD to AfD? Barrylb (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can clearly define the controversy, determine who the minority opinion is, and back it up with good reliable citations...I can't stop you. It would all have a logical flow and consensus would be easy to build. Put the issues on the table, keep it simple and on content. Answer questions and assume good faith. If the case is clear cut, I won't stop you. I would even help. All it takes is two editors willing to consider the other sides viewpoint and concerns.


 * As to Abd, he currently is a distraction to the whole process. --scuro (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll start. Can we agree with this definition of controversy:"A prolonged argument or dispute. esp. when conducted publicly and over a matter of opinion." One point I would like a concession on is that the controversy must be ongoing.--scuro (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to that definition (it fits), and no objection that it must be ongoing (it is). Barrylb (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, step two...what is controversial, everything about ADHD or specific things? If specific things, can you list them?--scuro (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As given in a source in the section above, "over the condition itself, its prevalence and, in particular, over the use of medication to treat ADHD." Barrylb (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can the controversy section be limited to the use of medication? Also, could you repost the two or three links which best support you contention?--scuro (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to continue this by working on the Controversy about ADHD article where all the details can be resolved. Then we can summarize in a small section here. Barrylb (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes too many voices doesn't allow for a back and forth conversation to take place. I think that this can work on this thread because I believe most of the other editors who believe there is a controversy, have a very similar viewpoint to your own. We could work on the controversy article but then the conversation is about edits and the volume increases and there are more voices. It all gets too distracting and progress grinds to a snail pace. I believe for this to work a foundation has to placed down first. --scuro (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I need to take a rest from this for a couple of days. Will return. Barrylb (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Compromise
Can't hang about to chat folks but I've made an edit that I think will avoid all this argument. See article history and my edit. Miamomimi (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it didn't stick, but I put it at the *end* of the introduction, to answer the objection of the editor who took it out. I'll be attempting to address our process here, which is typical of factional edit warring. We are attempting this backwards, trying to put controversy in the introduction, where the prominence issue raises itself strongly. *First* should come, I'd suggest, appropriate mention of controversy in the article itself, it's clearly sufficient for that. Editors who think mention of controversy shouldn't be in the intro should really move it instead of deleting it, or else they are likely to be labelled, on review, as POV pushing. The controversy mention that I have now is so minimal that it does not require notes -- if there is no notable controversy, the remedy would be to pull the rug out from under Controversy about ADHD, WP:AfD it, which would then require pulling the link from this article (of course, one remedy with AfD would be to decide to *merge* the Controversy article with this one. I.e., put it all back in, and there might be some advantage to that.)


 * We *do* need to find some compromise here. I'll point out that if serious administrative attention is drawn here, and especially if ArbComm gets involved, there is likely to be some serious irritation expressed by the community toward those who stubbornly insist on their own interpretation of the article and refuse to compromise. When wikilawyering is used to prevent article improvement, referring to this or that guideline or policy and ignoring the project goals and *fundamental* policies, it tends to get slapped down. SPAs may see editing privileges trimmed back, and there is an SPA involved here. Since my goal is to bring all parties together in some compromise that benefits the project, I'm not making specific accusations and I'm not making complaints.
 * --Abd (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Abd, I appreciate that, but now the weighting is so light as to be negligent. This 'umbrella' diagnosis was invented before it was thought about and questioned, and therefore has momentum. The skeptics are gaining momentum and there are many out there. I have stated earlier that I believe the best solution, the most logical and best practice solution, would be a more balanced, better written article which reflects both viewpoints. Clockback has presented an offering to that end and been slapped down. Every edit to give due prominence to the doubt over the diagnosis is reverted, mostly by those who have been diagnosed with the condition (go figure!). There are two articles in wiki (which is ridiculous in any encyclopedia) and if they cannot be combined, which is the most logical solution, then let them stand. But declare that from the outset. A reader informed by an article MUST have that information at the outset, otherwise they will form a biased judgement before they get to the information, overlook the info/link if not declared with due prominence, or miss it alltogether. It's your choice y'all. But any reader deserves ALL the information, so that they can make their own minds up. Miamomimi (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to worry, this is still a work in progress. Abd's statement is just a bare minimum due to a debate-in-progress and it probably will change. There is no intention to combine the two articles. This ADHD article is the main article. The Controversy article expands on the controversy aspect in detail. Barrylb (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the weight is light. However, my *main* suggestion at this point is to have minimal mention in this article at this point about the controversy, and focus on the Controversy about ADHD article. Clean it up, source it with reliable sources. *Then* consider what should come back into this article. Until then, there should be, at least, minimally acceptable reference to the controversy in the main article, so that the reader knows what is controversial. Just having a link to the Controversies article is not enough. As Scuro points out, controversy over what? Now, I have answered that question several times, as have others. Continually asking the question as if there is no satisfactory answer, when, in fact, there is reliable source on an answer, is sophistry. I'll see if I've got time today to make sure the controversies are mentioned in the article consistent with what reliable sources we have.


 * I would suggest that, at this point, it seems clear that the reality of ADHD as a disorder or condition is the generally accepted opinion; likewise with various aspects of its diagnosis and treatment, there are broadly-accepted opinions. We can know this from, for example, governmental publications on the topic, articles in the popular press and the like, few of which mention the controversy, and the basic fact that it appears other encyclopedias don't mention the controversy. So that is a starting position, with one exception. This is Wikipedia, we know there is controversy, and we can reference it and put it in its own article. The standards for that article are the *same* as for this article, the only difference being a balance question. That article will be *imbalanced*, overall; it will report diverse opinion that would be inappropriate for this article. An article about World War II will not detail every battle; detail about a battle won by the Axis forces might make it look like they were winning the war .... Wikipedia includes detail on a level utterly unattainable by print encyclopedias, and, properly, all this is findable through main articles on a subject, which then reference more detailed articles. The main article must have overall balance. This isn't a matter of percentage of text devoted, but of impressions on readers.
 * --Abd (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. Barrylb (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't sound reasonable to me. 'ADHD' is being rpeatedly and mistakenly compared with established medical or scientific theories. It isn't one. It is (and will one of you please respond to this point just once?) an unproven theory without any objective evidence for its existence, and therefore not subject to disproof. It simply does not deserve to be treated as if it is an established fact under attack by a dubious minority of crackpots. It is fashionable among doctors, but then so (for example) was a frenzy for pre-frontal leucotomy in the middle of the 20th century. That was a 'generally accepted opinion' of its time, and it was flat wrong. (So was the belief, 24 years ago, that SIDS was best prevented by lying baies on their fronts, now reversed by 180 degrees) I have no doubt that its contemporary critics were dismissed as 'fringe' and 'cranks' by the fashionable majority of the time. What other method could they use, given that their favoured treatment had no objective justification or decent science behind it? . The point about this is that the level of acceptance accorded to an unproven theory carries no weight in evaluating its rightness. This is, as contributors repeatedly stress, an encyclopaedia. Its duty is not to reflect passing fashion but to seek the truth. The truth is very often reached through controversy. The controversy about 'ADHD' has barely begun, and it is not for Wikipedia to make any presumptions about how it will end. Those who suppress or seek to minimise the existence of that controversy do a disservice to truth. Its fashionableness establishes nothing objective. The British popular (and unpopular) press is full of articles casting doubt on its existence (by no means all of them written by me), if that counts, and I have cited the remarks of Terence Kealey and other scientists casting doubt on the diagnosis, including Baroness Greenfield's question in the House of Lords and the recent Buffalo University study showing that the most popular 'treatment' for 'ADHD' is of dubious effect. The Second World War analogy is absurd. That war is over, and now know the true significance of events that was unclear at the time, and often wrongly evaluated. What some users seek to do (in tune with their clinging to this subjective concept of 'ADHD', as it happens) is to invent a subjective definition of 'controversy' which just happens to rule out the kind of controversy that there actually is. It's so blatantly self-serving I'm amazed they have the nerve. Either there's an argument or there isn't. there is. The article should say so clearly and I think I can state with confidence that, sooner or later, it will. The reason certain persons are so anxious to suppress this incontestable truth is that they themselves suspect in their hearts that 'ADHD' is false, and fear greatly the rational scientific examination which must eventually overtake it. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter Hitchens's comment is dense with a misunderstanding of Wikipedia, encyclopedias in general, and the problem of ADHD. So dense that I'm tempted to break tradition and intersperse. But I won't. Instead, I will quote snippets to respond; he has a question that is crying to be answered. Unfortunately, it's the wrong question, in a sense. Hitchens quotations are in italics.


 * Well, it doesn't sound reasonable to me


 * Yet he does not address what I suggested. At all. It's typical of this whole exchange. I suggested procedure, he responds with a criticism of content. He now has three editors, at least, if he includes himself, that agree there is notable controversy. Now, how do we proceed? Do we simply edit war, to try to wear down the "opposition." That is *not* recommended. Rather, we treat all editors with respect, and focus on the *text*. The *exact text*. And what we seek is consensus.


 *  'ADHD' is being rpeatedly and mistakenly compared with established medical or scientific theories. It isn't one.


 * That's right. It is not a "scientific theory." It is a diagnostic category, in current use.


 * ... It simply does not deserve to be treated as if it is an established fact under attack by a dubious minority of crackpots.


 * Since "it" is not a fact (what fact is contained in the name "ADHD"?), it is not a theory of cause and effect, it is simply a category used to classify symptoms, to define a "condition," someone who "attacks" it is, quite simple, a crackpot ipso facto. Criticizing its *application* is another thing. If use of the category leads to, for example, blindness to the variety of underlying conditions that may cause the diagnostic symptoms to manifest, including "normal childhood behavior" -- whatever that might be, my own opinion is that the label "normal" is one of the greatest of blinders -- then, of course, that *use* may be legitimately criticized.


 * This is, as contributors repeatedly stress, an encyclopaedia. Its duty is not to reflect passing fashion but to seek the truth.


 * Peter Hitchens has repeatedly missed the point which various contributors have stressed. An encyclopedia does not "seek" truth. It *reports* the state of human knowledge. Quite explicitly, Mr. Hitchens has here shown why this conflict isn't resolvable. He's been told this before. He may think that encyclopedias *should* seek the truth, but, of course, that's an opinion and certainly does not reflect what encyclopedias have been and continue to be, from the first to the latest. That something is "true" is never a justification for placing it in the encyclopedia, in the presence of controversy, except in a very limited sense. I.e., if it is true that a fact is reported in such and such a cited reliable source, and the fact is notable (a separate question, one also essential in the definition of "encyclopedia"), then this is a full justification for it being somewhere in the encyclopedia. We have already established, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is notable controversy about various aspects of ADHD. Now we proceed to determine exactly where and how to incorporate this here. Much of it is already present in the Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies article, but it is poorly organized there and poorly sourced. If we can nail down that article, i.e., find reasonable consensus regarding it, we can then use summary style to refer to it here. The exact placement of the summary in this article is quite possibly going to be the most difficult of our tasks, but, until we have a solid article to summarize, it would be a waste of time. Instead, we have a minimal summary here, taken from a reliable source, which then points to the subarticle. This is proposed as a compromise, and it does not prevent continued work on this article; but those editors who agree with the compromise might decide to oppose changes that overturn it, such as attempts to remove the mention from the introduction. Notice that this placement does not satisfy Mr. Hitchens, obviously, which is one sign that it *is* a compromise. But it may satisfy other advocates of including criticism *for the time being*. This is more than they had.


 * Either there's an argument or there isn't. there is. The article should say so clearly and I think I can state with confidence that, sooner or later, it will.

It does already state the best summary that has been found, so far, in reliable source, and it points the reader to the details. That Mr. Hitchens continues to write as if nothing has been done, as if his complaints have been ignored, says little about the actual situation. It's unfortunate. Mr. Hitchens then proceeds to make some uncivil comments about the alleged motives of disagreeing editors. That, too, is unfortunate.


 * To be explicit about one detail Mr. Hitchens wrote:


 * ''It is (and will one of you please respond to this point just once?) an unproven theory without any objective evidence for its existence, and therefore not subject to disproof.


 * Without any agreement on what "it" is, responding is responding to an undefined question, which is doomed to failure. What is the "theory"? We have here an article on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. I don't see a "theory" in that. We've examined the usage of the term "disorder" in the discussion above. It means "condition," or, more elaborately, "preceived constellation of symptoms," and the symptoms are generally behavioral, and we have few physical or objective tests for behavioral symptoms. There is no way to define "delusions," as an example, that is not subjective. I have no doubt that objective testing for behavioral symptoms could be developed, but it would be inordinately expensive, and objective testing is actually the exception rather than the rule in medicine and neurology. If there is some explicit "theory" stated, then we could discuss it. But Mr. Hitchens does not state the theory he is objecting to. What is it? I would think that in any rational exploration of this topic, that would come way ahead of claiming that everyone else is refusing to examine the "truth." What truth?


 * And it's actually moot, as I've stated again and again. Our question here is how to edit an article, and, if, somehow, we were to discover and agree upon some "truth" that had not been published in reliable sources, *we could not put it in the article and expect it to stay.* That would be "original research," and Wikipedia is not the place to publish such, quite precisely because there is no review procedure here, our chaotic editorial review is too unreliable. Whatever we do publish must be based on reliable sources, or, as a minimum, must be verifiable by the reader.
 * --Abd (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can deal with this briefly. 'Abd' should re-examine his own statement above (the part of it which no educated person could conceivably read without gasping). Has he read what he wrote? It goes thus: "The reality of ADHD...is the generally accepted opinion". How can the reality of something be decided by opinion? When precisely did we abandon science in medicine? The prescriptions of witch-doctors are thought (with much seriousness) to be correct by "generally accepted opinion" in some parts of the world. Are they therefore to be granted a fiercely-guarded Wikipedia article which fails to mention that some think otherwise, and whose guards have the right(by virtue of inertia) to mobilise procedure against any who dare disagree with them?   It may well be, as he says, that many other such 'conditions' are equally baseless. I'll leave that to others to discuss. I am concentrating on this one.  What I know is that no objective evidence exists for the existence of the thing called 'ADHD', and that the supporters of the diagnosis in this discussion know that to tbe the case, which is why they never challenge this statement (and also why they never explicitly admit it to be true, or try to discuss this issue, because it exposes their entire flank). And that this wouldn't matter very much if those deemed to be suffering from this complaint whose existence is a matter of opinion and fashion, generally powerless children,  weren't having highly objective pills crammed down their throats by supposedly responsible adults, trusted by those children. But they are, and it's a shameful scandal, and it is not up to Wikipedia to help suppress its existence with sophistry, nor is it the right of a determined and interested group of people to achieve this suppression by constant appeals to 'procedure' when both the truth, and natural justice, are clear. Had I but world enough and time (alas, I don't), I could no doubt edit this entry to ribbons, for if it were reduced to its actual facts it could be diminished to a couple of lines of speculative typescript. Instead, I wish to compromise. I am happy ( as my opponents are not ) for my opponents to be able to state their case for this patent twaddle as fully as they wish. Why will they not allow a clear, unambiguous statement that 'ADHD' is a contentious diagnosis? This is axiomatic *by its nature* because it is speculative from the start and could not possibly be anything else. This is the undeniable, unavoidable truth and its suppression is 'suppressio veri' and therefore a form of lie, and therefore morally wrong. The current feeble insertion does not meet the case, and nor do proposals to fiddle about with the 'controversy' article. PH logged in as Clockback (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote, not in the text immediately preceding Peter Hitchens' comment above, but previously, "I would suggest that, at this point, it seems clear that the reality of ADHD as a disorder or condition is the generally accepted opinion; likewise with various aspects of its diagnosis and treatment, there are broadly-accepted opinions." Now, this was not carefully worded, and my later comment was more careful. However, Mr. Hitchens is an editorial writer, and he is apparently accustomed to hyperbole and to "gotcha!" So he takes my earlier comment and cuts it down a bit to make it more dramatic: "The reality of ADHD...is the generally accepted opinion." If I had written "... ADHD as a physical disorder ..." it would have been problematic *though quite possibly still true.* I was writing about *opinion*, not "reality." Hitchens distorts this into some claim about reality, which it was not. Enough. He can rant all he wants, but the proof is in the pudding: edits. Uh, what *is* the generally accepted opinion, if not what I wrote? Perhaps Mr. Hitchens has access to a copy of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica? Or we could quote all the hordes of government and other agency and association websites? We can find evidence of controversy, but ... it's not easy, it is so buried in what is presented as if it were not controversial. This is a pretty strong indicator of what the "generally accepted opinion" is. I have *not* claimed that the generally accepted opinion is correct. And, again, I'd have to ask, "Correct about what?" --Abd (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Clockback, as an educated person I did not "gasp" at what Abd has written. I agreed with it, though.  I think you have missed the point that Abd was making.  ADHD is a diagnostic category used in Psychiatry and Psychology.  That is fact, it is included in the DSM-IV TR.  This is the expression of the mainstream of these professions.  I may disagree with some of the diagnostic criteria from time to time, but when I do so, I have to understand that I am then stepping out of the mainstream.  As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has to present the mainstream view and make it clear that this is the mainstream view.  It can then present alternatives, and make it clear that they are alternative perspectives.  If you wish to argue with the mainstream, then I suggest that you find out who the people are who are working on DSM-V and take it up with them, rather than becoming offensive here--Vannin (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The quotation, with the three dots in the middle clearly indicating an excision( which the reader can check a few lines above), removes nothing of significance and does not distort the meaning. Once again, my point is not answered. Why is there no objective evidence for the existence of ADHD'? Why, in the absence of such evidence, is it illegitimate to point out in the opening of the entry, the truth, that it thwerefore axiomatically remains a contentious, unproven  theory? Doesn't Wikipedia etiquette oblige the 'ADHD' police to respond to these questions? PH signed in as Clockback (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:SOAPBOX Your point has been answered, you choose to ignore the answer. ADHD is the most studied childhood disorder period, with over 2 thousand studies looking at what exactly ADHD is. These studies have led to a body of evidence which taken as a whole allows scientists to draw the conclusion that the disorder exists. Your previous often cited complaint is that there is no "objective test" for ADHD, has also been answered. There is no objective test for a multitude of disorders, hence the term disorder instead of disease. Even without an iron clad 100% foolproof test or declaration, most can accept that Autism, BiPolar, or Alzheimers are disorders which exist.


 * CB, you have been around the block a few times now. Three/(four?) separate editors have complained about your behaviour. A complaint was also logged on your talk page. Desist with the personal judgments and attacks or further action will be taken.--scuro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, to be studied is not to be proven, and Scuro never deals with this point. There may be many studies of the existence of the Yeti, for all I know, but a million of them wouldn't establish that it exists. A lot of opinions about something whose existence hasn't been proven doesn't prove it. Nothing multiplied by ten billion remains nothing. We are not discussing a 'multitude of disorders'. This has been alluded to in the past. I stated then, and repeat now that while disorders may all share the single negative characteristic that they ahven't been objectively proven, they don't all shre the same positive characteristsics. Nothing would therefore be gained by diverting the discussion into the question of other disorders. We are discussing the thing called 'ADHD', not the other 'disorders' which he mentions.  'Scuro' reverts any attempt to state in the article about this theoretical disorder that it is contentious or controversial, thus compelling us to debate this until he recognises that a thing whose existence cannot be objectively established must remain contentious and controversial unless and until it is established by objective proof, susceptible to disproof if new facts come to light. This is, as I have stated before, axiomatic and unavoidable in logic.  The only outside authority I call to my aid is that of disinterested editors anxious as I am to ensure that the article is as truthful as possible. I am happy to abide by their judgement. Is he?

My 'behaviour' is to insist that this is an encyclopaedia of fact, rather than of opinion and to continue to defend this position on this page in the hope of obtaining a sensible compromise.. I am happy to defend this behaviour to any disinterested person. I long for 'Scuro' take the 'further action' which he has repeatedly threatened since I began this discussion, and I have frequently begged him to take it, on this page. Yet he never has. I do wish he would get on with it. PH, logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up links
Barrylb removed some links with the summary, "cleaning out some external link rubbish." I only looked at one of these links, and it didn't seem to be, literally, "rubbish," but it might have been redundant or may have had some objectionable characteristic not obvious to me in my momentary examination. I'm placing here all links removed, and any editor may object to the removal individually, plus Barrylb or another editor may explain why it was removed. We may also want to categorize external links; that can be useful especially if a website expresses some POV, but also for other reasons.


 * Alternative ADD/ADHD Treatment Informational Site for parents and adults.
 * This site is essentially an ad for a particular homeopathic treatment. In my opinion, it should stay out of the article.  Dawn bard (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * CDC's "Learn the Signs. Act Early.” campaign - Information for parents on early childhood development and developmental disabilities such as ADHD
 * Considered redundant to other CDC link by Barrylb --Abd (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * School and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder


 * Must be Mental An informational website


 * Our Children's Brains Part XIII: Pay Attention! What Is Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder?

--Abd (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Which link did you look at that you think should be kept? My edit summary didn't include mention that the CDC link was removed because there was already a CDC link and we don't normally link twice to one site. Barrylb (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion that any of the links should be kept; if I did, I might have put it back! Rather, though, I'm asking for reasons for each link. A bit of a prod, here: was the CDC link "rubbish"? As I wrote, it might be redundant. I have some dislike for a policy "we don't normally link twice to one site," because some sites are huge, and there might very well be reasons to link to specific pages. That is, there might be more than one page on the CDC site, not necessarily linked to each other, that would be of interest to readers of this article. So I wouldn't be rigid about it....


 * In any case, I looked at the other CDC link, which is the main page on ADHD. The removed link is to a totally different section of the CDC site, it's a brochure that does not seem to be linked from the main page, it is from the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. Seems light weight, but might be useful to a reader. It *is* an additional resource, but I'm not sufficiently exercised to put it back in myself.... I'm also marking that link above with the reason for removal, just to be tidy.--Abd (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Developmental disorder
Abd, why do you repeatedly remove the term "developmental disorder" out of the intro? It is a developmental disorder and the term should be in the first sentence or two for the reader. Are we advocating that we should remove pertinent information? --scuro (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You will find ADHD in this list developmental disorder --scuro (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Our edits have been crossing. I explained why the first time, I explained it above, and, with this crossed edit, I also explained it below. I have no problem with it being in the introduction, but that it is a developmental disorder is a subtopic. First of all, is it a disorder at all? (yes). "Developmental disorder" looks at ADHD in children, period. ADHD is a larger topic than that, and, as a behavioral syndrome, whether or not it is "developmental" isn't particularly pertinent to the *overall* definition.


 * If "developmental disorder" is so important, why does the NINDS article which is the source Scuro is relying upon leave it to the end of the article, the last paragraph, when it starts to talk about research? Above, I detailed how each of the sources cited addressed the definition. None of those sources call it a "developmental disorder" in the basic definition. Yes, ADHD can be a developmental disorder, that is, it can arise in the course of the development of a child. But that is not all that it is.


 * Of the four sources, the first, a long article from the NIMH, does not mention "developmental disorder." The second is the NINDS article that mentions it at the end, talking about research. The third, from the AACAP, which might be expected to mention it (the C represents "Child"), does not. The fourth source I don't have access to as the full article, but it is on epidemiology and the abstract does not mention "developmental disorder." So .... what in the world is Scuro trying to do, starting edit warring with rapid reverts with no basis in the sources he leans on. The question is not whether or not ADHD is a developmental disorder. It is, at least for some. The question is whether the term belongs in the introduction, and if so, where. I'd suggest it is not in the first sentence, as part of the basic definition, where it, as he had it, conflicted with the rest of the text.
 * --Abd (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted your first revert because I thought that you clearly missed the point of the edit (you did) and didn't revert after that, although you reverted a second time...and I am edit warring? Once again with the judgments and accusations. Were two warnings on your talk pages not enough? Keep your eye on the ball please and that is the topic at hand.


 * With regards to developmental disorders...you seem misinformed ("Developmental disorder" looks at ADHD in children, period...whether or not it is "developmental" isn't particularly pertinent to the *overall* definition). Developmental means delayed. You speak of some traits that are still delayed with you. That would be traits that are developmentally delayed if you are referring to your ADHD. This means that as a child these traits clearly lagged behind. With time, well into adulthood, they may catch up to some degree or they not improve much. We don't know. Some traits with ADHD often disappear, hence we don't see a lot of hyperactive Dads "climbing over furniture" and "constantly moving". When a professional sees the term developmental disorder, that instantly tells them that the patient will have lagging skills over a longer period of time but that they could potentially reach a normal level. What a huge bit of info conveyed in one word.


 * Please don't get hung up on the citations. There are billions out there on this disorder. If you want more for DD, just ask.--scuro (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are some more citations which took a minute to find. Is there any plausible reason why a defining characteristic of the disorder should be excluded from the lead?


 * http://www.loni.ucla.edu/Research/Projects/ADHD.shtml#CurrentResearch
 * Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder affecting approximately 3 to 6% of school age children. ADHD is characterized by difficulties with attention, motor over-activity, and impulsivity that interfere with normal functioning in various settings. Currently researchers and physicians in the field regard ADHD as a neurological, biochemical disorder, no longer a behavioral disorder as was once believed. Numerous studies support the idea that ADHD is a developmental disorder that the individual is born with.


 * http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/hr_tips/article_1.cfm?b_id=23&view_all=true
 * Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a developmental disorder. Individuals with ADHD are commonly described as having chronic difficulties with inattention, and/or impulsivity and/or hyperactivity. They are believed to display these characteristics early, to a degree that is inappropriate for their age or developmental level.--scuro (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the language of the introduction
User:Scuro, I mention in an insertion above, put back the old developmental disorder language in the intro, giving the summary, "(an editor has eliminated the term developmental disorder - it is being restored...see the NINDS citation, more citations can be gathered in needed.)"diff I changed it back, explaining in Talk why. Without engaging in discussion, Scuro reverted it, with the summary, "(Nothwithstanding the condition/disorder mean two different things, the edit was made to include the term "developmental disorder"..ADHD is a DD... references follow the phrase.)"diff

Yes, ADHD is commonly described as a Developmental disorder, i.e., "at some stage in a child's development." However, the intro also acknowledges that not all ADHD is due to inheritance, and not all onset is in childhood. Or should we take out "typically presents in childhood"?

The introduction should have the most general and uncontroversial *definition* of the term. There is probably already too much in there, but one thing at a time!

I replaced the new language with the simple "condition," and continued to clean up the intro. I took out the reference to British terminology, it's enough to have the British term there, and whether or not Hyperkinetic Disorder or ADHD is more common in Britain is surely not worthy of mention in the introduction, it's a tiny detail.

The NINDS citation, which is the one Scuro is apparently referring to, does not choose to mention developmental disorder in its introductory paragraph. And the NINDS article is focusing on children, so, of course, it is going to mention "developmental disorder" in the body.

My goal with the introduction at this point is to keep it very simple until the rest of the article is cleaned up, as well as the article Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies. I have no conclusion in mind as to how much of the controversy should be explicitly described in this article, how much it should be reflected in the language of the introduction. For now, I'm assuming that this article need not bow to the controversy with every sentence and paragraph, but, of course, with supplied reliable source to the contrary .... that might change. --Abd (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the history lesson but I would prefer brevity especially since the "lessons" often frames the readers viewpoint and that can be biased.


 * I'm glad that you have a goal but your goal doesn't override other goals like the goal of accuracy. http://www.russellbarkley.org/adhd-facts.htm Here is a link where the fact that ADHD is developmental disorder is mentioned in the opening line.--scuro (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Accuracy"? This is not a question of accuracy, it is question of the best language for the introduction. There is no dispute -- by me -- over ADHD being a developmental disorder. It is. Scuro managed to find a source where DD is mentioned in the opening line. As against the first three citations actually in the article, two of which don't mention it *at all*, and one of which only mentions it in the last paragraph. Plus, uh, is that supposed to be a "reliable source"? --Abd (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Plus, uh, is that supposed to be a "reliable source"? - uh...you are joking?--scuro (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"There are diverse views regarding the existence of ADHD as a single syndrome" this sentence really bites since no one in the field really considers that the disorder is a single syndrome. There appears to be at least two types of ADHD that can be caused by different things. The term used most often to describe ADHD is that it is a heterogeneous disorder.--scuro (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How about adding this that was cut out...Social critics are highly skeptical that the diagnosis denotes a genuine impairment and question virtually all that is known about ADHD. The symptoms of ADHD are not as profoundly different from normal behavior as are those of other chronic mental disorders. Still, ADHD has been shown to often impair functioning, and many adverse life outcomes are associated with ADHD. See Controversy about ADHD.


 * I don't like it but it is far better then what is there and can be improved upon as editors come to consensus.--scuro (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Treatment section out of balance
I cleaned up the Treatment section a bit, making text conform more closely to source. Source was secondary, the BBC, reporting the results of an apparently as-yet unpublished study. Even though the BBC calls the study "significant," or "influential," it can hardly be yet influential if it hasn't been peer-reviewed and publish. This might simply be bad journalism, it happens, I've seen press reports of a study prior to publication and the actual study turned out to be quite different. So I tightened this up and removed POV language from it, moving toward exact quotation as reported in the article, and I attributed it to the BBC.

However, this section was and still is badly imbalanced. Ironically, given present complaints about this article, it is imbalanced toward criticism. Treatment by drugs is only presented as something being now under doubt and suspicion. Maybe it will become so, but the status quo is that millions are being prescribed drugs by physicians who believe them effective, rightly or wrongly. There is no doubt in my mind that the negative study results belong there (better, when we have the actual article, that they conform to the actual study, not to a newspaper account), but we should also have reports of the effectiveness of drug treatment. What's the evidence for that? Is there any? (I think there is, indeed, there has to be *something* shown about effectiveness for drugs to get approval, usually. It might be misleading, it might be wrong, but it must exist. Further, "long-term effectiveness" is not the only issue. Something that is effective short-term may still be quite valuable. I'd need to see the actual study reported, *in detail* before having an opinion, the BBC article is way too sketchy. Anyone got a reference to the article? Has it been published yet? Other reports on it?

How is ADHD treated with drugs? Dosage? (For example, dosages of stimulant medication for ADHD are typically quite small; in fact, strong response to a very small dose of stimulants is sometimes used as part of the diagnosis of ADHD.) What drigs? (Someone had modified the quotation to include Adderall, which was not in the orignal article. Somebody wasn't careful about source, I suspect that someone came along and just read this article and said, hey, Adderall is used too, and tossed it in....

This article once had Good Article status, it's lost it. Perhaps because so many editors were focusing on maintaining their own POV? Wikipedia needs editors who understand NPOV and who greatly value it. We will each have our own POV and that can help us to recognize BS from the other side. Editors who are truly neutral typically don't have the motivation to stick with an article and protect it from POV and other poor edits. So, POV editors, and we have a few, you are needed here. Just, please, try to understand and respect the crucial importance to the encyclopedia project of Neutral Point of View in articles. --Abd (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Another issue, having not seen this study yet, is that the medications are not theorized to be a long term cure, but to work in the short-term. Thus when someone stops taking them, I would expect them to continue to have ADHD symptoms, and so I wouldn't expect to see any difference between the groups at the end of the day.--Vannin (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A chart on drug and children from the Surgeon General http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter3/images/fig3_2.jpg Basically stimulants are considered very safe and effective when taken as prescribed for ADHD. Particularly for those who are, or were, hyperactive. Long term is a fuzzy area but it's not as negative as the naive media reports or fearmongers want us to believe.--scuro (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

addition to introduction by User:Clockback "lacks scientific diagnosis."
I reverted the following edit from the introduction.


 * Like other disorders, it lacks any objective scientific diagnosis and despite many efforts to do so doctors have yet to show any evidence that it is a neurological complaint.

I looked at the source and saw nothing like what was in the intro. It may be on some subpage. References should be directly to the page needed. If a printed source, page numbers should be included.

The text I removed is disputatious and is clearly an opinion presenting a POV (reliable sources may report POVs, they do not therefore become fact other than that the quoted person holds the POV). Further, its placement in the introduction, immediately after the introductory definition, is radically out of balance. The introduction should claim nothing that is not claimed, in detail and with references, in the body of the article, and, where it summarizes, as it usually should, the summary should not imbalance the presentation. We already have in the introduction a general reference to the controversy. We cannot justify more than that at this time, and, in fact, even that could possibly be too much -- certainly Scuro has expressed displeasure with it, and an anonymous IP editor tried to take it out. Until something better comes along, it's the best we can do.

(The present introduction is not in good shape this way, but it doesn't get better by having inappropriate, improperly sourced material added to it.)

What with Scuro coming in from one side and Clockback from the other, it may become difficult to maintain the article as neutral; however, I assume that other editors will step in, they are needed. --Abd (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. Just a little test, and the self-appointed guardians of this page ( who of course have no point of view) failed it exactly as I thought they would. Within three minutes -three minutes - of this edit being saved it was needlessly revised, within two hours it was unjustifiably reverted. No surprise there. The vigour and rigour with which these people reject anything casting doubt on this pseudo-scientific, evidence-free fantasy is, as I have pointed out before, to be compared with the relaxed view they take of unjustified assertions and passive voice in the entry as it stands. And yet my addition contains an incontrovertible statement of fact which I have made on this page repeatedly without challenge (there is no objective diagnosis - if this is true, how can you in all conscience revert it? If it is not true, where is your evidence of its untruth?) with a qualification made repeatedly by Scuro himself(this is the case with all disorders)which is also presumably true(I take Scuro's word for it) so likewise cannot be reverted without the production of evidence to the contrary.All of this was backed up by a quotation(culled as it happens from the 'Controversy on ADHD' entry) from a pro-ADHD doctor admitting that they don't actually know what 'ADHD' is. So why was this reverted? It's apparently not a point of view to say that ADHD exists, without evidence, ( statement which is entirely a matter of opinion) but it mysteriously *is* a point of view to say that there's no evidence for its existence ( a statement which is incontrovertibly true whatever your opinion).We already know that we are not allowed to say there is a controversy about 'ADHD' even though there's a Wikipedia article about that controversy and a discussion about that controversy has now lasted more than a week on this page without any sign of coming to an end yet. There is no equivalence between my persistent attempts to add a fact or two to the entry and the page's self-appointed guardians' persistent efforts to prevent me from doing so. However, I share Abd's wish that others will step in. As many as possible please. It is comical, the way the guardians of this page cannot see the weakness in their position, and I find it increasingly funny to watch them at it. PH, logged in as Clockback (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's too bad. I'm not sure Clockback reads the links we put in these responses, but I don't go to the trouble of putting them in if there isn't something there I think important. Clockback should read WP:POINT. What I see above is a persistent refusal to understand the issues of how Wikipedia articles are edited. It's been explained over and over, by me and by others. Controversy is already mentioned in the introduction, using the "diverse views" language that was explicitly found in reliable source. Controversy may be explored with much less restriction (there is far less notability problem) in the Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies article, and, when that article is in good shape, it becomes possible to use summary style to bring what is appropriate back here. It is not true that editors are not "allowed to say that there is a controversy." Most of what I could say at this point I've already said more than once. Enough is enough, I have better things to do, including things to do with this article. Sometimes we get what we ask for. Watch. --Abd (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What with Scuro coming in from one side and Clockback from the other, it may become difficult to maintain the article as neutral; however, I assume that other editors will step in, they are needed. Abd...Abd...I shake my head...once again with the personal comments. Your assumption of course is that you know what neutral is and that others will see this clear vision and join hands. Since you have made so many personal observations about me over the last little while, I hope that other editors will allow me some latitude here to make my own personal observations in the same spirit as Abd.


 * Abd...you show a degree of ignorance on the topic of ADHD that undermines your authority to judge other editor's neutrality. I notice that you don't make many additions with citations but rather that you attempt to synthesis opinions, cut and move around passages. Good stuff has been thrown out of the article by you and we can't keep up. Slow down with your edits and allow us lesser mortals to follow. This is a community and community means that you don't synthesize what you think the other members want to say into the article and talk pages, but rather, that you let them do it independently. Most of all stop with the running commentary about what every editor is doing and why they are this or that. That crap is really counter-productive by framing your on bias of how you see other editors by stating the "facts". It reminds me of a kid who tattletales CONSTANTLY.--scuro (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Classification and consequences
This section is a mess. The section title is a hodgepodge. It's full of unsourced statements, or, alternatively, the citation tags are incorrect, the later source in the article covers the earlier claims, which it might. It's not quick and easy to find out. The last source is the U.S. Census. Uh, what publication, what page? Do we read the thousands of pages to find out? Anyone care to work on it? --Abd (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Diseases.2Fdisorders.2Fsyndromes --scuro (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is, indeed, a useful resource. The present article isn't organized as suggested, it seems to me. However, a reorganization in the presence of an edit war isn't the most useful task to be taken first. Looking at this, the first thing I was struck with was "But what if an editor doesn't agree that this is a disease?" However, the guideline actually covers that. ADHD, no matter how we slice it, is a "syndrome," a pattern of symptoms. Then comes "classification," and the old practice, the "early nosological efforts grouped diseases by their symptoms, whereas modern systems (e.g. SNOMED) focus on grouping diseases by the anatomy and etiology involved." However, with some disorders or conditions, the etiology is unknown. Generally, the anatomy is known: with ADHD, the "anatomy" is the nervous system, the manager and mechanism of behavior, and while there may be some endocrine involvement, that would only be relevant insofar as it affects the function of the nervous system. Hence ADHD is "neurological." This is offensive to the critics, I'd suggest, because they think of neurology as only relating to observable anatomic differences, whereas, in fact, the brain is extraordinarily complex, and microstructure, only recently beginning to be appreciated, is involved. Only recently, for example, has it become possible to image how neurons are interconnected, more than a synapse or a few at a time. Behavior is encoded, apparently, in the *pattern* of interconnections, and the complexity of this is staggering, we may be a long way from being able to observe the interconnection patterns and related this to a behavioral syndrome. Or not. Sometimes discoveries come in a surprising way.

I've been seeing this in a number of controversial articles lately. The battle is over what definitions of words are controlling. While that is an issue of political significance, and is not necessarily easy to resolve, it is *impossible* to resolve if the parties don't even recognize the problem: each group is using a different definition of the terms of the controversy. Different definitions, with this article and its disputes, are used for "disorder," "neurology," "objective," and, on an even deeper level, "encyclopedia" and "truth." It is not uncommon that readers with a strong Point of View get fired up enough to start editing because they want an article to reflect the "truth." This can be useful, in fact; however, as has been pointed out many times, it is not the function of an encyclopedia to present the "truth." This comes, indeed, as a great shock to some -- but who gets to decide what the function is? Wikipedia is owned by the WikiMedia Foundation (WMF) and, ultimately, *it* decides. Originally it was Jimbo Wales. The *operational* definition of who gets to decide has been mostly transferred to the user community, and, when push comes to shove, to the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee is something to watch, I spend a good portion of my time on this site doing exactly that. Suffice it to say that repeatedly, woven through the policies (which are strong, relatively fixed) and guidelines (which are weaker) and essays (which are often just the opinion of one or a few editors), is the claim that "truth" isn't an argument for putting text into an article, rather, "verifiability" is. The encyclopedia isn't about truth, it is about knowledge. And, yes, "knowledge" can be mistaken, but the place to correct it isn't here, generally, but in the world of science and scholarship and, sometimes, politics.

Now, is this violated? Often. Articles are created by writers who frequently just write what their opinion -- or knowledge -- indicates, and these articles will frequently be very poorly sourced, even when they are otherwise accurate and well-written; in fact, if the article is written by an expert, lack of sources can be extreme. Without sources, there is little verifiability. Eventually, if people care about the article, it will start to attract editors who source it. Or correct it, with or without sources. When controversy appears, battles between editors can rage for a time. Ultimately, though, articles will tend to settle on what is widely considered "NPOV," or Neutral Point of View, and any other condition is a violation of policy, and editors who strongly insist on their own POV find themselves excluded from the process. But it is also understood that NPOV articles do not spring, lotus-born, from the virtual pen of fully-enlightened editors. That is, usually not! Nobody is punished merely for putting their point of view into an article; rather sanctions (Wikipedia, theoretically, never punishes, and administrators who do attempt to punish actually can lose their privileges) are applied for failure to respect community process, never merely for holding or expressing some point of view -- unless it's thoroughly offensive (such as making racist comments in an inflammatory way). --Abd (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the intro that needs work. The intro needs to reflect all the major sections, as suggested in the MoS. Some are missing!! When I am finally not expending energy debating wiki policy, or asking editors to focus on content, my attention will turn to this task.--scuro (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Double standards in editing again - zeal for deleting sceptics, no such zeal for deleting the contentious works of the 'ADHD' faithful
Once again legitimate minor changes to the article are reverted with fantastic zeal, whereas the article's vast, phantasmal claims are allowed to stand unchallenged. What references did the above passages need? The 'historical' summary of 'ADHD' is available in the entry, and clearly shows that the alleged complaint has at different times been associated with identifiable brain damage, and also not associated with it. This is clearly contradictory to anyone not befogged with partiality. As for methylphenidate and the amphetamines aiding concentration in anyone who takes them, the pro'ADHD' lobby can produce reams of stuff showing that these drugs aid concentration in alleged 'ADHD' patients. Until it can demonstrate a physical difference between 'ADHD' patients and normal human beings, its own research establishes this axiomatically. Mountains of it. Since I cannot wean 'Scuro' off his tedious 'Where's the beef?' question, which he thinks so potent, I shall redirect it at him. Maybe, in that case, he will finally grasp what it is I am about. "Where is your beef, Mr Scuro? Where is your objective proof of the existence of ADHD?" He never answers this question, and cannot. And in his failure to answer it lies his inability to understand my very simple and many times repeated point, which Scuro and his allies seek to lose in a squabble about procedure which has nothing to do with it (if it had, they would long ago have pinned me to the wall by an appeal to arbitration, which they dare not make). This article concerns a speculative and contentious diagnosis, not an established fact. The use of technical words such as 'syndrome' and 'disorder' may well tell experts that 'ADHD' is a construct without objective evidence for its existence. But lay readers, who are, regrettably, impressed by long words, and who are medically ill-informed, cannot glean this information from the article. That is why it is necessary for it to be stated in clear English that the diagnosis is contentious. If a parent wants to drug his or her son with potent psychotropics on the say-so of a social worker and a questionnaire, and without physical evidence of any illness, then I suppose he or she has the right to do so, sort of. But what if he or she doesn't realise that this is what is actually going on, as I suspect is the case with many such parents? By the way, is this really the place for user testimonials for methylphenidate? I am glad of these clear declarations of interest, but surely such stuff is best sent straight to the manufacturers, who can use it in their publicity? By the way, the above passage: "However, with some disorders or conditions, the etiology is unknown. Generally, the anatomy is known: with ADHD, the "anatomy" is the nervous system, the manager and mechanism of behavior, and while there may be some endocrine involvement, that would only be relevant insofar as it affects the function of the nervous system. Hence ADHD is "neurological." seems to me to be gibberish. What does the 'hence' refer to? PH signed in as Clockback (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your questions have all been answered long ago, you choose to ignore this. But you ask again...over and over...It's getting silly really. The "beef" is suitable citations which have been supplied by all the other editors and which you have not offered any for, except from that long retired Neurologist and Scientology medical expert Fred Baughman. The cited opinion of the scientific community trumps your uncited opinion on Wikipedia. But you know this also. It's really all about WP:SOAPBOXing isn't it?--scuro (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The above user (Scuro) tells me that my questions have been 'answered over and over again'. I am not aware of any answer to my request for an objective proof of the existence of 'ADHD', or for details of an objective test for its presence or absence in the human body. Can he please direct me to them? There is also a confusion above about my aim and purpose. I have offered not only Baughman, but also Kealey and Greenfield, as evidences of *controversy*, the only fact I wish to establish on the entry. My sub-argument about the existence of 'ADHD' is here only because I am constantly told that there cannot be controversy about it its existence because this is a settled matter. But it demonstrably isn't, or Scuro et al would be able to provide objective proofs of existence rather than the mountain-ranges of baseless and contradictory assertions which they constantly provide instead. I have advanced nobody and nothing at all in pursuit of my statement that there is no proof for the objective existence of 'ADHD'. I don't want to insert this statement in the article, though I believe it to be true. I have never sought to do so. I merely seek to stop the supporters of this concept acting and writing as if this unproven theory were a settled fact, and to accept the axiomatic conclusion that the diagnosis is contentious ( and the language changes in the rest of the article which logically follow from that). That is what I sought at the beginning. It is what I still seek. Thus the argument about the lack of proof for 'ADHD', though not intended for the article, goes right to the heart of the question. As I keep explaining, I cannot prove a negative. Nobody can. It is up to the supporters of the phantasm to prove its objective existence. I do not need to prove its non-existence, as I (and the rest of the human race) await any evidence of its existence. When will Scuro etc grasp this? I ask my questions 'over and over' precisely because the supporters of the ADHD fantasy don't answer them. Gosh, I am so patient and polite compared with my opponents. By the way, yes, Dr Baughman is retired, and may have co-operated with Scientologists. So what? Is this legitimate argument or ad hominem tripe? Easy. It is the latter. The one is not his fault ( we all get old and retire if we live long enough, and are often none the worse for it) and the second doesn't alter the fact that he has forgotten more about neurology than Scuro and his supporters ever knew. It's been nteresting to watch a non-neurologist repeatedly over-ruling a college-qualified professional neurologist on what 'neurology' means. I have only not reverted the request for a citation on the 'neuro' part of 'neurobehavioural'  out of respect for the rules. None of the references provides any evidence for a neurological component in 'ADHD'. PH, logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * CB...I said, "you ask the same questions over and over again", not that you have been answered over and over again. There is a difference there. If you don't remember the answer, simply post ONE question at a time. I will answer the question again and also expect you to answer direct questions when asked per wiki policy. If you don't want to do that, as in the past, and instead want to step back up again on the WP:SOAPBOX and rant for the umpteenith time, this dance is over. I look forward to a spirit of co-operation and hope you do also from me.--scuro (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You ask for one question at a time. Here it is : What is the objective scientific proof that ADHD exists? PH, logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you CB for working with this format...it is much appreciated. Please give me a little leeway here seeing that I don't have a scientific background. What proof does science have that ADHD exists? It's a large body of evidence that taken as a whole allows scientists and researchers to draw the conclusion that ADHD exists. Remember that ADHD is the most studied childhood disorder with I believe well over 2000 studies. The scientific community has lots of data from many different sources to draw from. The same thing holds true for global warming. You can't point to the major northern polar ice melt this last summer and say hey look at that, this is the evidence that proves it! It is the body of evidence as a whole that allows them to draw a conclusion.--scuro (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And thank you too. I don't have a scientific background either, but I know that objective proof of a theory can only be found in repeated experiments producing consistent results, peer-reviewed and capable of disproof by subsequent evidence not available at the time. Many scientists insist that a theory should also be tested by examining its ability to predict( as in predicting the further devlopment of the symptoms of a known disease, or predicting the movements of heavenly bodies, or the breaking strains of structures, etc). "Evidence" is an often misused word. Unless it specifically and consistently supports a testable theory, it is not 'evidence' but information. The number of studies of a subject does not bear on the issue of whether its existence is objectively proven. You might study 'ADHD' forever without producing a scrap of objective proof for the existence of it. Knowing this, many of its supporters have sought, mainly through PET scans, to produce objective proof. They have not so far succeeded, as they themselves admit.   Objective proof is not the 'drawing of a conclusion' from 'studies', either 'as a whole' or in any other way.  It is the establishment by experiment of a consistent and objectively measurable definition of the thing proved. It is a consistent method of detecting the presence or absence of, and so defining,  the thing whose existence is posited, which can be repeated by any qualified person with the same equipment and facilities. There is none for 'ADHD'. Why not just say so? (that is my next question)PH, logged in as Clockback (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be a leading question CB....so I will wait until you can frame a proper question. In reading your opinion above it appears that you are under the false assumption that the research evidence that scientists used to make the case that ADHD exists, is not repeatable. I assure you that it is.--scuro (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Would Scuro please supply any research evidence that 'ADHD' has an objective existence. I am aware of none. A 'leading question' is one employed by a lawyer, trying to guide one of his own witnesses into saying what he wants him to say. I am in no position to ask Scuro such a question. I repeat, why not just admit that there is no objective evidence for the existence of 'ADHD'? It would make things so much easier. PH, logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe your definition is correct and the questions no longer are seeking information for the purpose of communication and understanding. This attempt at conciliation is looking to be more and more like a waste of time. --scuro (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether he believes me or not. That is what 'leading question ' means, and such questions are disallowed in English courts ( and I suspect US, Canadian, Australian and NZ courts as well). What else could it mean? Why else would it be wrong? He asked for single, clear questions. I provided one. 'Scuro' dodged it, because to answer it would be to admit that I have been right all along, and there is no scientific proof for the existence of 'ADHD'. If time is being wasted, it isn't being wasted by me. I have stuck rigorously and patiently to the same position from the start (In the absence of objective proof for the existence of 'ADHD' its existence is axiomatically a controversial and contentious subject), and await only a recognition of the facts I state, or a refutation of them .Once that is achieved, we can proceed to the next stage. So long as it is not achieved, there is no basis for conciliation. Either there is objective proof for the existence of 'ADHD' or there is not. It is no good trying to redefine 'proof' so as to include things that are not 'proof' ( a standard tactic of 'Scuro' when in difficulties is to re-engineer the English language, so that controversy doesn't mean 'controversy', for instance, and 'neurological' doesn't mean 'neurological' but spychological or behavioural ). Proof is proof. Scuro cannot redfeine that. If there is proof, it can be produced. If there isn't, it can't. As, despite countless requests by me for it to be produced, nobody has produced it, I think the disinterested reader would be justified in copnclusing that there isn't any. PH, logged in as Clockback (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong about leading questions (they can improperly be used to attempt to lead another witness) and your wrong about clear questions. You are also going to great lengths to twist things into a pretzel like form. I'll be around when a serious attempt at communication wafts in the wind again.--scuro (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Um... in all fairness I don't see that's a leading question, just a plain one. Some chap, however educated, has identified a list of behaviours and deemed that those who exhibit these behaviours are 'suffering' some kind of 'condition' that requires medical intervention. He's given that condition a name. The spectrum of behaviour seems diverse (but not that far from normal) and in some who are diagnosed with this condition the behaviour could be caused by external factors such as diet and/or environment. Indeed the spectrum of behaviour that is a problem to some, in some circumstances, might well be deemed normal by others or in other circumstances. Therefore it is perfectly proper to question a diagnosis that may simply be a qualification of the unsuitablitiy of someone for their environment, whether that be that their behaviour is deemed unsuitable by authority or that they themselves feel they don't 'fit'. Todays sophisticated environment requires mostly sedentary academic focus at a young age. In the 16th century that wasn't such an issue. Also, I have myself noticed medical fashions. Clockback has noted that homosexuality was once generally regarded as a mental health issue so let me consider the other gender; 1869: Dr George Taylor developed the first vibrator. The steam-powered apparatus was used to treat 'female hysteria'. The supposed symptoms were anxiety, irritability, sexual fantasies, pelvic heaviness and excessive vaginal lubrication (in other words, sexual arousal) The patients were 'treated' with the vibrator until they experienced relief through 'paroxysm' (orgasm). Now forgive me if I'm wrong but what was once considered a medical complaint exhibited by women (anxiety, irritability, sexual fantasies, pelvic heaviness etc.) was simply some poor woman being perfectly normal. Unfortunately her normal, healthy reactions were a problem for her envirnoment and so the medical profession stepped in to relieve her of her 'condition'. Nowadays Dr. R. Rabbit would get struck off. Miamomimi (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Neurobehavioural"
The references used to support this claim are a) a standard unsupported assertion of the existence of ADHD, replete with contradictory 'historical' references many of them pertaining to instances of known brain damage, and second supposed research into brain patterns of ADHD patients in which it is not stated whether those scanned had been taking medication before the scan ( a rather more likely reason than 'ADHD' for their brains to be different from normal) . This is not evidence of any neurological component in 'ADHD'.As DR Castellanos has said in a reference inserted by me and deleted by others, there is no such evidence. PH logged in as Clockback (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC) So why have my request for citations to establish a neurological component for 'ADHD' been reverted? PH, logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "neurobehavioral" is a term which refers to behavioral manifestations of the nervous system. "neurological" includes "neurobehavioral." There is reliable source calling ADHD "neurobehavioral," and others using "neurological." These terms include manifestations which are purely due to "programming," rather than to structural defects or diseases. However, the nervous system is physically changed, and shows different chemistry, depending on its programming. It is *physically* programmed, through an interdependence between the "programming," which is manifest in the patterns of interconnections, and then through various responses due to the stored memories and responses. Thus the brain *chemistry* of someone suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder is different from that of someone free from it, on average. Hitchens is using "neurological" following the conventions of ADHD critics, who attempt to confine it to structural or disease implications. That is not what the word means. Perhaps this is one reason why a retired neurologist, following older educational foci, may claim that there is no neurological component to ADHD. It's actually patent nonsense, given the language. Suppress all nervous system activity, I guarantee that all ADHD behavior will cease! *Human behavior* is neurological. The term "neurobehavioral" includes all behavior. Why not just "behavioral?" Well, I certainly wouldn't be reverting out edits to "behavioral," but the fact is that it isn't called that in the literature. We have a number of choices. I thought "neurobehavioral" was more respectful of the critical positions, because it emphasizes the behavioral aspect, while at the same time respecting the "anti-fringe" contingent here by including the term "neuro." The citations given in the introduction establish the use of "neuro" or "neurology," I've quoted the terms used above. What more does Scuro want? He is asking for something -- "proof that it is neurological," when, obviously, he is using the word "neurological" in a nonstandard way.


 * "Behavioral neurologists" study human behavior. ADHD is a condition found in human behavior. It may or many not have structural or genetic causes, and apparently sometimes it has only accidental causes, i.e., trauma. Heritability of ADHD has been shown in the twin studies, something which Clockback has not addressed at all. If it is heritable, there must be, at least, some susceptibility that is genetic. --Abd (talk)


 * As has been common here, Hitchens raises a whole series of what are legitimately individual issues, all at once. I'm picking out one of these. If the source for "brain patterns" is bad science, and it's old, as it is, surely there is some peer-reviewed source pointing that out. If Hitchens, or any user, edits the article to reflect this, and sources the edit with a peer-reviewed publication, it will stand. If he simply inserts argument in the article, based on his personal opinion or even knowledge, it's not likely to stand. Basically, Peter, to put it bluntly, put up or shut up. Note, however that the PET scan study from which the article takes the image showing a difference specifically excluded those on medication. I think it completely excluded those who had *ever* been medicated for ADHD. But, again, we could argue here forever, when the pudding is the actual sourced edits that we do.


 * I'd suggest to Hitchens, given his history of making unacceptable edits, that he first present a specific proposed edit here, for criticism and comment and improvement, and not make actual edits that he should know will be reverted. But he, quite properly, would continue to make edits that he believes will be broadly acceptable, as will I. *Improve* the article, there is a lot to be done. Improving the article will *always* move it toward consensus. It may never reach a state which will fully satisfy him, nor me, nor Scuro. However, we can get closer.


 * There is a good chance that he will be blocked before the day is out. Or not. Depends on what administrators decide. He's given sufficient cause, in my opinion, for at least a short block (24 hours). This is not an attempt to convince anyone to block him! But directly defying an administrator with edits is ... well, you'd better know what you are doing. He doesn't. Or if he does, he wants to be blocked, he is trolling for it, perhaps because he will then be able to crow in his column or on his blog, "I was blocked by the edit cabal at Wikipedia, simply for trying to put the truth in a Wikipedia article, etc." Were I an uninvolved administrator, I'd be happy to oblige him. Were I an administrator at all, with my edit history here, I'd not touch blocking him with a ten-foot pole, it would cause the loss of my admin bit if it went to ArbComm. In my opinion, also, administrator Versageek is not sufficiently involved here to cause a conflict of interest; he, in fact, simply warned Clockback, and reverted edits in a relatively neutral way. However, if he wants to be totally safe, and, being new, he might wish to be very careful, he would ask another administrator to look at the situation.--Abd (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I find these comments totally unnacceptable; I think this is trolling for a block on Clockback. I am not suprised that Clockback expects to have perfectly reasonable/truthful edits reversed as that has been his experience here, and his efforts have not been a mischievous attempt to cause trouble at all. If anyone has been insulting or using inflammatory language it isn't him! I'm amazed at his tenacity in continuing, in good faith, to get this article to better reflect the truth. Miamomimi (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Trolling" refers to making an offensive comment, seeking outraged response that might cause an editor to act beyond limits. Sometimes what I write can have the *effect* of trolling, but, I guarantee it, that is never intentional. I am, instead, seeking consensus, though, to paraphrase a popular book title, sometimes in "all the wrong places."


 * Rather, I warned Clockback, because he had started edit warring, and, yes, placed a request on an administrator page that the administrator look at the article. I did describe my opinion of what was happening, but not only about Clockback, I commented on other editors as well, where, in my opinion, editor behavior has recently violated civility and other policies. I am also *very* aware that in making such a request, my own behavior will likely come under scrutiny. Making a request like that, for one involved in edit warring, is hazardous (it's not uncommon for the complainant to be blocked). Now, it's time, as well, to note the involvement of User:Miamomimi, and his relationship with User:Clockback. See Special:Contributions/Miamomimi, notice what he has edited. He's been around a while. He started, immediately after registration, with editing the article, Peter Hitchens. In case anyone has missed it, Clockback is Peter Hitchens. In the sometimes blunt and unfortunate language of Wikipedia, User:Miamomimi is either a "meat puppet," or something similar (such as a sycophant currying favor with a famous person, and I have no evidence to bear on that; the effect would be the same as "meat puppet"). Is this an attack on him? I don't think so, I am merely pointing out what is obvious to one who looks at Contributions. The effect, if I'm correct, is that a meat puppet and the "master" are treated as if they were a single editor. As far as I am concerned, Clockback is welcome to as much support as he can muster, or as offers itself to him. The exceptions are polls and edit warring, for meat puppets can allow an apparent avoidance of 3RR violation. Participating in multiple reversions, even if the individual editor makes only one, can, under some circumstances, result in a block. As it has been said, WP:3RR is a "bright line," beyond which blocking is *almost* automatic. --Abd (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that so many editors have been attracted to the page, I'd just like it if folks no longer attempted to win the Pulitzer with each post and kept it simple and on content.--scuro (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The references used to support this claim are a) a standard unsupported assertion of the existence of ADHD, replete with contradictory 'historical' references many of them pertaining to instances of known brain damage, and second supposed research into brain patterns of ADHD patients in which it is not stated whether those scanned had been taking medication before the scan ( a rather more likely reason than 'ADHD' for their brains to be different from normal) . This is not evidence of any neurological component in 'ADHD'.As DR Castellanos has said in a reference inserted by me and deleted by others, there is no such evidence.


 * What are you talking about CB? The references are totally acceptable by wiki standards. You make unsupported claims...extraordinary claims. What is up with the brain damage reference?...or the reference to brain scans? I can't even connect your ideas to the citations provided in the article. These citations offer a broad take on their scientific opinion of what ADHD is. These research centers, scientific bodies/ national health institutions, and leaders in their field. Their OPINION matters a great deal and you wave it off with references that are neither cited, nor that connect the dots in the readers mind, and more importantly have no bearing on the issue. There opinion is what counts and there is no way to negate that without clearly showing a credible minority counter opinion. What we have seen so far is a hodge-podge of citations, most of it fringe opinion or fluff. Once again...where is the beef? --scuro (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I do wish Scuro would stop imagining that 'Where's the beef?' is a witty, original or penetrating question. It's a relic of a forgotten US presidential campaign,. It is also especially inappropriate for him to keep asking it. I don't, I'm afraid, think that he could see any beef in a whole bull charging straight at him. It would probably be a fringe bull, and so wouldn't count. Meanwhile, there is no 'beef', or indeed any other solid substance save pseudoscientific spam, in the theory of 'ADHD', a phantasmal invention entirely lacking in scientific proof for its existence. All I point out with these edits is that this is so. The quantity of opinion-based discussion papers, consisting entirely of assertion and subjectivity, doesn't alter the fact that objective proof is absent. The PET scan is not even claimed by supporters of the theory to be evidence of the neurological existence of ADHD.Their claims are rather more modest, see the 'controversy' article), or to be a method of diagnosing it. It continues to be 'diagnosed' with the subjective, vague criteria listed in DSM-IV and displayed in the entry, as they ought to be. I am not required, by the rules of scientific discussion, to provide evidence of a negative. The supporters of this theory are obliged to provide evidence of their positive, but they never do, just masses and masses of repetitive assertion plus references to German folk-tales. If they cannot support their contentions, then they should just resile, and stop telling me off for being naughty. I love Scuro's Humpty Dumpty approach to language. The word 'controversy' (in Scuro's dictionary)  must conform to an incredibly tight definition which just so happens to exclude any of the many critics of 'ADHD' from being counted. The word 'neurology' meanwhile must be reduced to a de-medicalised vagueness so that 'ADHD' can be classified as a neurological disorder when there is no evidence that it has any neurological charcter. This is really getting funnier and funnier and it is a pity that Scuro and his ally/allies cannot see it. But please, please, please, won't these people take their long-threatened action against me? They don't, I believe, because they fear that the involvement of disinterested parties will result in the prominent inclusion of the terrifying word 'controversy' in the main article, where it obviously ought to be. I have no purpose in this discussion beyond ensuring that the truth is told to the lay reader. PH, signed in as Clockback (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You call it "pseudoscientific spam" yet the posted citations on the article are from top notch scientific bodies, research institutes, and leaders in the field. Yes, it is their opinion that ADHD is a neurological developmental disorder and the opening line has been changed to reflect this. Some may question why we need to do this since the scientific community in this field has so conclusively come to this opinion. It is a compromise for your benefit. Beyond that I see no reason to change anything. Since you directly question the science of ADHD you need to put your money where your mouth is. Where is the scientific body or national health institute that supports your claim? Where is the beef? To date we have one citation from a neurologist who retired 15 years ago and worked for Scientology. Beyond that what citation do you have from anyone with scientific/ medical credentials and works in the field? This isn't a scientific debate, we are not scientists...this is about Wikipedia standards which requires citations. Play by these rules or be gone.


 * Finally CB...if you really want a third party hearing, initiate it yourself. There is nothing to stop you from doing this. Good luck to you.--scuro (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have, as it happened, appealed for help at the first formal stage, some days ago, and to an individual editor who I believed to be interested.. I am still waiting. Will Scuro please read what I say and please stop asking where this blessed beef is? I have answered that, quite wittily in my view. He is the one who needs to provide substance, not I. As soon as he has a peer-reviewed article showing that 'ADHD' has an objective existence, then he's OK and we can all go home. All I point out, now perhaps for the thirtieth time without any pro-ADHD person contradicting me or responding, is that there isn't one. Therefore I have no duty in any normal argument to argue against it.*You cannot prove a negative. It is up to the ADHD zealots to prove their positive, and they cannot*. Assertion is no substitute. It is up to Scuro and his friends to produce it, or stop their comical attempts to keep from the lay reader the fact that this diagnosis is contentious. Opinion does not decide scientific fact. There is no neurological element in the diagnosis for 'ADHD' nor any evidence that it has a neurological character, and the Kings of the Earth and all manner of scientific bodies may crack their cheeks by bawling that it is so, but they won't alter the fact however loud they bellow. 'Top notch' indeed. In the fable, recall, it was the *emperor* who had no clothes. That is the whole point of the story, that the powerful can be, and often are, wrong by self-deception - and that their power and status does not automatically make them right. One of these grandiose bodies until recently classified homosexuality as a medical disorder. The the fashion changed, and it ceased to do so. Homosexuality remained just exactly the same thing as it had been before. By the way, I am asked to comment on the alleged 'heritability' of 'ADHD'.This, alas, is circular. If something doesn't exist, you can't inherit it. I suspect, however, that you can inherit an independent spirit and a dislike of dreary lessons in incompetent schools, and I am sure that a free society should value such people rather than drugging them. PH, logged in as Clockback (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * CB are you actually communicating on any content issue? Did you read what I posted and how Wikipedia works? I have a life...don't waste time.


 * If you purpose is really just to make an issue out of this may I suggest that you make yourself familiar with this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal Personally I suggest against it, but if that is the only way you can deal with your "unresolved" complaints, who am I stop you?--scuro (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) "Where is the beef" is an American colloquialism derived, as I recall, from a television advertisement where a customer of a fast-food restaurant is complaining about the sandwich received. (Naturally, the ad was run by a restaurant chain that wasn't the one portrayed!) This ad was extensively exposed until the phrase became familiar, then it was used politically. It has come to simply mean, "what is significant, what's the point?" And, here, "what specific edit are you proposing?" Because all the Talk may sometimes be useful as background, but unless it focuses on actual edits, in the end, there is no "beef" in it. Don't get me wrong: my opinion is that background and philosophical discussion about the principles of what we are doing is proper and necessary, but, beyond a point, stubbornly arguing a position isn't what works here. It's like talking about menus and diet but never actually eating anything. In any case, there is actual editing going on. Nice. Some of the edits aren't so great, but others are. --Abd (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The commercial referenced above used to have a hamburger with two large buns and a microscopic patty. It has come to mean where is the substance beyond the empty white starch calories? Here it has been used in the same manner.....We get all talk but what we really want are those oft requested citations.--scuro (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Major changes by User Sifaka 1/22-23/08
I sourced a lot of the fact things, changed some weasel words, eliminated two mini-parts of the article as shown below and rewrote the treatments section to reflect the views of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, which represents the vast majority of psychiatrists' views, and therefore the most mainstream notions of ADHD and various treatments relating to it. source here

Removed Bits + objections
I pulled the sentences bolded two sections from the article. I think they should be sourced.

The clinical definition of "ADHD" dates to the mid-twentieth century, when physicians developed a diagnosis for a set of conditions variously referred to as "minimal brain damage", "learning/behavioural disabilities" or "hyperactivity". These conditions were in many cases associated with brain damage, but in other cases not, and do not provide a consistent history of the existence of an identifiable complaint. Researchers speculate that earlier references to the condition have been made throughout history. Sifaka  talk  02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This first a bit wordy and unnecessary as it was stated above that researchers are speculating. The statement is also self contradicting in that the identifiable complaints are descriptions of behavior like "malady of attention" which overlap with the body of indicators related to ADHD, hence the speculation. It also is unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sifaka (talk • contribs) 00:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In 1937 a Dr. Bradley in Providence, RI reported that a group of children with behavioral problems improved after being treated with stimulant medication. '''However, stimulants such as methyphenidate or the amphetamines will improve concentration in any individual who takes them, whereas medications in mainstream medicine only produce beneficial effects in those who are actually suffering from a specific complaint. Penicillin, for instance, does nothing for a healthy patient, and paracetamol is useless for anyone who does not need an analgesic.''' In 1957 the stimulant methylphenidate (Ritalin) became available.

This second one sort of disrupts the flow of the paragraph and most certainly needs to be sourced. A jaunt to ADD forums, while not a reputable source, comes up with some people saying that this isn't the case with side effects including insomnia, hyperactivity, lack of hunger, etc. I also find it bizarre that stimulant medications are being called non-mainstream as well considering they are fairly commonly prescribed. Sifaka  talk  00:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Stimulant medication improves many things for those with ADHD, aggressive behaviour...for instance. There are many clinical trials which show this. Not so for the general public...in fact you may get the opposite effect. That theory many need to be worked on.--scuro (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought. Medication does not always have the increased concentration effects when taken by non ADHD patients. Sifaka   talk  02:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this: low-dosage time-release methylphenidate (i.e., Ritalin) does not make me nervous or jittery, does not seem to show a tolerance effect, and *vastly* improved my sleep, I had no idea how badly I was sleeping until I started taking it. I was literally bent over from pain waking in the morning, and it would take be a half-hour or so to begin walking normally. A very small dose of this drug, 24 hours before, had a drastic effect, and that effect has persisted -- if I continue to take it. Of course, my own experience is anecdotal, but I was told that this is common for people like me and that it is *not* common in the general population. This is, in fact, a chemical test for ADHD, though I don't know what research has been done on it. (This kind of test is called a "challenge test," where a drug is administered and response to it is associated with an underlying condition.) Most drug trials don't look for this, rather they will control for the drug (i.e, drug vs. placebo). However, to make the experimental variable be various behavioral types, observing the effect of a small dose of the drug, would be quite interesting, I'd think. Has it been done?


 * There is a common objection that ADHD is not a disorder, that the behavior may simply be within normal variation, and, allegedly, there is harm from "labelling" it as a disorder and "drugging" children into being compliant kids, perhaps suppressing their natural enthusiasm. Really, I wish that people who think this would spend some time with ADHD kids -- and others -- who are being properly treated. Stimulants don't depress and repress people. ADHD kids become *able* to focus, they still choose what to focus on. Isn't just a little bit suspicious that one can treat hyperactivity with a *stimulant*? Is this what you would do if you wanted to repress inconvenient activity? I used the term "condition" in the introduction because that is neutral. But it is *also* a disorder, i.e., there is some disability involved. Has it occurred to critics that within "normal" behavior there is a range, and that a person at one end of the range may be "disabled" or "disordered" *compared to the middle*, not to mention the other end.


 * How I understand ADHD is as a variation in mental structure or process, and I do think it is genetic (not the least because my brother had it and my biological kids have it, four out of five and maybe five. I have two more adopted, one of them is incredibly active, but it is way too early to see if this is true hyperactivity, she is only four. Some characteristics of ADHD are *normal* at one age, but not later. That's why it can be seen as a developmental disorder, it is a slower development in certain ways. But, like most genetic variations that have wide frequency, it also confers benefits. I wouldn't trade my ADHD for "normal" for anything. To me, the benefits outweigh the deficits. This article does not sufficiently mention that ADHD is associated with genius. Not all ADHD "sufferers" are geniuses, but a disproportionate number are. We are also apparently more prone to addictions that is normal. This explains some stereotypes about artists and creative people! But ... a parent learning that their child has ADHD might think of being grateful. ADHD kids can be difficult, but also can be very, very rewarding. Knowing about ADHD is crucial, though. If one expects an ADHD kid to be "normal," one is almost certainly going to be disappointed. As adults, we miss appointments, we leave important tasks to the last minute, don't pay the bills on time, we can be scattered and fail to "perform to expectations." However, with the right support, we can be captains of industry, leaders in various fields, or ... simply functional and interesting members of society, wise mothers and fathers, and all the rest. We just don't do things the same way as other people, and that, sometimes, is a disability or disorder, and sometimes a blessing. People who learn how to communicate with us love us, and people who don't, who expect us to think like them, can find themselves disliking us intensely. Some of us develop serious skills in communication and become therapists or others who can read people almost like mind-reading, but, at the same time, we can't sustain this continuously with anyone. The focus moves on. And so do I.... --Abd (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Scuro - don't understand last change to article
Hey Scuro - I see you've reverted my last edit but don't understand why? Can you explain? I've researched the viewpoints (plural) of medical skeptics myself and sought only to better mention the content of the 'controversy' article before the link provided. As it stands, the wording suggests that social critics = journalists and the like but specifically NOT medical professionals, which is untrue. Look, would you please think about my point and re-word it yourself? I'd be grateful if you would as I really am going to follow your good example now. Cheers. Miamomimi (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Not to worry - I've effected a compromise. Miamomimi (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that one...if you look at the edit history I clarified everything first...and then thought some more about this. I have seen some webpages by Doctors and Psychiatrists who contend what you contend. What I am really pushing for is citations and then to get info into the main article. Then you can make a summary like you did in the intro if it is well supported. The question is...is there a clear minority of Professionals in the field who question the existence of ADHD? Perhaps you know more about this then I do. If you could post the webpages in talk with groups or different Dr's, it would be appreciated. I'd also like to point out that you can be a Dr. and also be a social critic. For instance Dr. Phil is a doctor, is widely known, has made public comments on ADHD...but I would consider him a social critic about the validity of the disorder. He is not working in the field of ADHD research. Does that make sense? Others may disagree, I'd be happy to hear from them.--scuro (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No I see what you mean, I think that makes perfect sense Scuro. I also see what you mean about 'Dr Phil'. I would ask that my compromise edit stays in effect (as it is neutral) and I'll come up with the citations. Please give me a little time as it involves some work and... well I'm sure you understand. Thanks. Miamomimi (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The change was, partially, an improvement. However, there is one problem. The language I'd put in, which was taken out to make this "compromise," was explicitly supported by reliable source, though it did not say a great deal, only pointed out that there are "diverse views." (This was intended as stopgap language, a compromise itself, not as a permanent solution: the permanent solution is to improve the Controversies article -- the very name of which clues the reader into the fact of their being *some* kind of controversy -- and then use summary style to bring back what is appropriate and balanced from that article into this article. The new language implies that disagreement with the general opinion, which is what the article will present most prominently, is confined to "social critics." I appreciate the intention.... but I also agree that, there is, in fact, disagreement over various aspects of the ADHD picture that is coming from professionals, sweeping it all into "social criticism" is incorrect. However, if reliable source can be found for it, fine, though the language may still need tweaking. --Abd (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Diverse views", is just too broad and means nothing except that there are a number of opinions on this very broad topic. It makes no attempt at qualification or quantification. Diverse views would include proponents of "pyramid power" for curing ADHD, and the viewpoint that those who have ADHD are the spawn of devil. It's a no brainer statement because there is no subject where everyone has the same opinion. Sticking that phrase in the intro really doesn't sit well with me. It would even bother me in the body. I took another wack at it shifting weighting and using the word "some". I could live with that edit while Miamomimi searches for citations.--scuro (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Scuro, if I was going to express what you are doing here I would have to break all the protocols of politeness and would surely be very offensive. I'll not do it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justana (talk • contribs) 12:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What is "neurology"?
Editor Clockback has repeatedly asked for proof that ADHD is "neurological." ADHD is classified as a behavioral condition or disorder. Behavioral disorders are ipso facto "neurological," it is practically inconceivable that it is anything else. By definition.

The basic error has been pointed out again and again: there is an artificial division some make between supposed physical disorders of the nervous system and behavioral disorders. The nervous system regulates and manages, among other things, behavior. We use the term "behavior," in fact, to refer only to aspects of human activity that are central nervous system mediated. (If a behavior, like heartbeat, takes place with no CNS support, we don't call it "behavior," except in a very technical sense, i.e., "the behavior of cultured heart muscle cells in a petri dish."

So all behavior is "neurological." It does not require proof, because it's in the *definition*. We don't prove definitions, we apply them.

It would appear that what Clockback is objecting to is an implication to the general public that there is some physical "disease", a "neurological disease," which implies some identified structural defect, endocrine disorder, or abnormal chemical imbalance, perhaps genetically based, causing ADHD. The name of the disorder, however, refers to behavior, and the article notes that it is probably heterogenous. (One of the implications is, in fact, that ADHD can have a "physical" cause, i.e., physical trauma can produce the symptoms. ADHD is defined and diagnosed, currently, by behavior, though there are hints at the possibility of supporting a diagnosis with physical testing (such as genetic analysis or drug challenge). Behavioral diagnoses, for all behavioral disorders, not just ADHD, are currently based on assessments of behavior by the diagnostician and are, hence, in some sense, "subjective."

There is substantial evidence, adduced in the article, to a genetic component to ADHD. But, first, what is ADHD?

It is nothing other than a named constellation of symptoms, as with any other behavioral condition. Again, Clockback objects to the term "disorder." Yet, in fact, they symptoms named to represent impaired function with respect to some forms of behavior; the ability to regulate activity, to concentrate on socially expected behavior. These are abilities, and the apparently difficulty that group displaying these symptoms is a "developmental disorder," when we look at it from the point of view of development. If we look at the DSM criteria for diagnosis, *all* of the criteria represent, if based in ability, some deficiency or disorder. Could there be other causes for these? Well, DSM does not consider each of these criteria, alone, to indicate ADHD, nor does it consider even all of them together to indicate ADHD; rather, rather, there must be multiple symptoms, persisting for six months *and manifesting in multiple environments.* Again, could this be imitated by something other than an inability on the part of a child -- or adult -- to do these things? Perhaps the child is so intelligent that the child recognizes that what is being demanded is stupid. Is this a disorder?

Probably. That is, having the skills and the ability to use the skills to successfully cooperate with others is a basic human trait, normally present. An intelligent *and* functional child would understand how to satisfy the needs of those around him or her *as well* as to satisfy the needs of his or her own independence of action and thought.

From the point of view of society, it's important that people be able to communicate and cooperate effectively, and an inability to do so is disabling, and may cause that very intelligent child to, among other things, die young and isolated.

What is very interesting about the treatment of ADHD with drugs is that it generally involves small doses of stimulants. Far from repressing the intelligence of these children and adults, it allows it to be more coherently expressed and integrated. But the treatment of ADHD is not only with drugs, and treatment only with drugs is deficient. Education of the patient and of those who interact with the patient are the other two legs of the tripod. People with ADHD can be *very* functional -- even high-achieving -- when given appropriate support. Schools that have decided to change the old habit of requiring that students fit rigid social models and expectations and instead start to tailor programs to individual students have seen performance skyrocket (see Driven to Distraction, and Delivered from Distraction, Hallowell et al).

In business, Hallowell describes a case where an employee comes up with an idea that will save his employer millions of dollars a year. His boss says, "Fine. I've scheduled a meeting next month, have a presentation ready." Now, anyone who knows ADHD as a practical reality will know that such a schedule, if unsupported, is highly likely to result in failure. Ask me to do something *now*, I'll do it. Ask me to do it *today,* maybe. Ask me to do it by next month, and without further reminder or support, such as someone to help me set milestones and monitor achievement of them, and my success could be very low, whether I get it done at all depends on how difficult it is. I may, sensibly, start early, but then I run into some obstacle and, hey, I've got a month!, so I set it aside. Unless I have very good reminder systems set up, I don't remember until the day before. The employee in the story tries to start several times; he ends up sitting down, the night before the presentation is due, and works until the early morning, perhaps 4;00 AM, and gets it done. He then takes a nap. And wakes up too late to arrive at the meeting. He goes to work, hands his presentation to his boss, and is told, "You're fired." The company, however, implements the program and saves millions of dollars per year. *Quite similar things have happened to me.*

The company fired an employee who could have continued to serve in a very valuable capacity. He was good at certain things, and not at others. By supplying him -- at low cost, in fact -- with what he needed to perform well, or even by simply recognizing that he might be late sometimes, the company could have benefited. But, instead, there was a moral judgment against missing an important meeting. He wasn't a "team player." He was "irresponsible." This man actually benefited, though, by being fired. He started his own consulting business and was quite successful. I'd guess he hired a secretary to keep him on track, or developed methods for doing it himself.

Now, there is a political dimension to all this. Providing support for "disabled" employees, in the U.S. at least, is required by law. If ADHD is a disorder, if it is not merely a choice that an employee makes for which the employee is morally and legally responsible, it might be illegal to fire that employee without making reasonable attempts to accomodate the disability. To my knowledge, this has never been tested, but it is not surprising to me that a conservative columnist might take such an interest in claiming that ADHD doesn't exist. However, with ADHD, it is quite likely that making the legally required attempts will actually benefit the employer (and this may be true for many disabilities). For schools to become more flexible in how the handle ADHD kids is probably going to result in better education for all. Or, I suppose, we could go back to the ruler or swats -- as I experienced, I was in high school before physical punishment went out of fashion, and, while I was loved by my teachers, the school attendance officer took a dim view of the flexibility they accorded me. Even though it was painful, I'd much rather be me than him, and I'll admit it was satisfying when I handed him an order that I was permitted to drop my first period class, which he had swatted me with a special paddle he kept in his office (holes drilled into it so it could be used at higher velocity), for missing. He was angry, livid. I liked that, because he could no longer take it out on me.

So, what is "neurological"? "The branch of science which treats of the nervous system." It includes the study of behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 16:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Abd - however thrilling the memories of your childhood may be I feel obliged to remind you that "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.", nor is it a forum for insults or personal comments. Please constrain your comments here accordingly. Miamomimi (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please address improving the article, and related issues. What is above was about a central issue raised by Miamomimi's friend, Peter Hitchens. If the question of whether or not ADHD is a neurological condition is irrelevant, then surely he should tell his friend to stop repeating it over and over, asking for proof. In order to answer the question, which Mr. Hitchens, supported by Miamomimi, keeps claiming we ignore, we have to have a definition of "neurological." I supplied one, and, by that definition, all human behavior is within the purview of the field of neurology, and is therefore neurological. So, either address the issues or ... stop complaining. What happened in my childhood is an ADHD story, and I told it for a reason. If it is meaningless to you, set it aside. It violated no policy. The purpose of all this is article improvement, and if someone can't see that, well, so what? Not everybody is going to see everything. As to insults, what insult was in the above discussion. But I'd suggest that the comment "however thrilling the memories of your childhood may be" is, actually, insulting. By Wikipedia standards, mild. But insulting nevertheless. Stop it yourself, Miamomimi.


 * As to the forum, why does Miamomimi complain about my discussion of the topic, but not about Clockback's far more disruptive meandering, repeating the same useless question over and over? When I try to answer the question or to clarify it, no response. Hitchens is apparently relying largely on a "neurologist" who, simply, was not a behavioral neurologist, who did not deal with that field at all, it appears. Or does behavioral neurology also not exist? You know, there are such theories. Or dogmas, as the case may be, belief that the seat of behavior isn't the nervous system, it's the soul. This hypothesis that behavior comes from the brain, is it falsifiable? Where is the proof that it is true? Why can't we say, "There is no proof that behavior originates in the brain." (Or, in the other direction, "There is no proof that there is any non-neurological basis for behavior.") --Abd (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Abd - can you please STOP making personal assumptions and comments and confine yourself to editing the article, thankyou. Miamomimi (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To 'Abd', a word of gentle caution . I have never met 'Miamomimi' and only know that user through correspondence - in which we have generally disagreed strongly - on several other issues. On this particular issue, Miamomimi (unusually) agrees with my position. Please don't assume that anything other than facts and logic are involved here. Another editor, neither a friend nor a political ally, shares my point of view on this one issue. That is all. This may be inconvenient for you, as it underlines the fact that scepticism about 'ADHD' is not confined to a wacko fringe but is in fact quite common and perfectly respectable - more respectable than the intolerance and rejection of scientific method employed by some of its supporters. You also seem to me to have taken remarkably little account of the many constructive interventions by another user, Barrylb. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

the attempt to alert the reader to possible controversy in the intro, undue weight, your ideas?
First may I suggest that making note of the "controversy", or visibly referencing to the the controversy article may very well give undue weight to the "controversy" by placing this in the intro. Having said all that, I have tried to define who the critics were and their viewpoint. Here is my attempt:

''The scientific consensus in the field is that ADHD is a disorder which impairs functioning, and that many adverse life outcomes are associated with ADHD. The symptoms of those with ADHD can be not that profoundly different from normal behavior. There are critics who don't believe ADHD exists. Predominantly this group would consist of social critics such as the antipsychiatry movement. Certain religions, especially scientology, are highly skeptical that the diagnosis denotes a genuine impairment and question virtually all that is believed about ADHD. Individual medical professionals and other prominent media personalities also question the disorder. See Controversy about ADHD.''

Abd has stated that we shouldn't mention scientology but I ask why not? Along with Antipsychiatry critics, they make up the bulk of the material that questions ADHD's existence. Wikipedia wants us to attribute the assertions.--scuro (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If the Scientology criticism is notable, it can certainly be mentioned in the controversies article. However, it should not be mentioned in a way which implies that all criticism is associated with Scientology. There are even controversies about ADHD among scientists, even among psychiatrists. So, on this, I'm in agreement with Hitchens. Except that I do think that, since they are notable, they should be mentioned. Carefully. And sourced. I don't think, though, that there is any basis for mentioning Scientology in this ADHD article. --Abd (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason for not 'mentioning' Scientology or 'anti-psychiatry' is that there is no reason for including these mentions except as ad hominem smears against the non-Scientologists and those not associated with anti-psychiatry who have reasonable empirical doubts about this fictional complaint - just because they are capable of telling a hawk from a handsaw and are not bamboozled by pseudo-medical jargon. Just as the reasoning for 'mentioning' it is to attempt to discredit those sceptics by association. I suppose you could balance such an assertion by saying that believers in 'ADHD' were 'predominantly' incompetent teachers, bad parents and lazy doctors, often in need of paying patients, backed up by interested drug salesmen and by people wishing to seek a physiological explanation for a moral failing, which in my view is largely true, But I imagine that would be (rightly) rejected, and I wouldn't propose it. But sauce for the goose, etc. PH, logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If "ADHD is fake" crowd was majority viewpoint and the scientists were fringe, I'd agree with you. They are not. Assertions must be attributed. Find me a better answer if you don't like the one I provided. --scuro (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that day will come, when the fashion changes, as it did over pre-frontal leucotomy, and people realise the full horror of what is being done in the name of 'ADHD'. But when it does I hope and trust that we on the winning side will not seek to censor the rump that continues to believe in the existence of this nonsense. They will be entitled to their view, and in my opinion should be encouraged to remember that they used to hold it, even when ( as I expect ) they are hoping that everyone has forgotten. Majorities do not decide scientific truth. Evidence-free assertion is not proven even if 99.999% of all scientists happen to believe in it. Scientists, alas, are as open to crowd psychology as everyone else, and have no special weight in scinetific discussion except when they are speaking *as* scientists, that is, dealing with objective, testable proofs which they are themselves competent to examine. Otherwise, their opinion is no more useful and notable than that of, say, sheep-farmers on nuclear waste disposal. Since there is no evidence for the existence of 'ADHD' which scientists can study, nothing save fashion keeps it alive. When fashion changes, as it will, nobody will believe in it at all. Or almost nobody. I believe that some practitioners of pre-frontal leucotomy still maintain that it is cool. PH, logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ADHD is a diagnostic category, a name for a syndrome identified by a set of behavioral symptoms. As such, it needs no proof. It exists. The "proof"? Look in the book. It's there. How useful it is, the implications of the diagnosis, whether or not there is any genetic or structural or neurochemical cause, how to treat it, or whether or not to treat it at all, all this is another matter. It's silly to "believe" or "not believe" in a diagnostic category. The symptoms described are real, some people actually do behave that way. It would seem that what Hitchens is objecting to is that there is any coherent underlying pattern, any connection between the symptoms. I think he has elsewhere claimed that these are simply normal kids being identified as "sick" or something like that. But the constellation of behaviors called ADHD isn't normal, practically by definition, because the symptoms are all compared to normal. That is, every symptom in the list, or at least most, can be, at one time or another, "normal behavior." However, for these symptoms to occur together, and for a sustained period (six months I think is the criterion), and to a degree that the child (or adult) is impaired in functioning socially -- or personally -- this is not "normal." By definition. However, I suspect that Hitchens has some idiosyncratic definition of "normal." (And some agreement on this, perhaps never explicitly stated, might be behind much of the "social criticism" of ADHD -- and that of a certain neurologist as well.) --Abd (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion but that doesn't do a stitch to negate the need for the assertions to be attributed as per wiki policy. That will happen at some point and so far we have seen no reason not to do so..nor a better model.--scuro (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggested that at this point the mention of controversy in this article -- unless clearly related to a particular topic here, and reliably sourced, should be limited to a brief reference, in the introduction, at the end of the intro, to the controversies article, with the briefest of explanation as to what is controversial. The claim that "the existence of ADHD" is controversial is preposterous, but, in fact, some might be claiming that, making it notable. I find the meaning of "existence" in this context to be vague and undefined. What does it mean? What is Hitchens asking for when he asks us to "prove that ADHD exists?" Is he looking for something tangible, that perhaps he could see or taste? Okay, he could see the text in DSM-IV. But, obviously, that does not satisfy him. But ADHD isn't a "thing." There may be some physical thing behind it, but there is only indirect evidence for that, so far. It is apparently heritable, from twin studies, which would imply that there is a genetic pattern, which is, indeed, physical, and which could be the basis for an "objective test." But that doesn't exist yet. However, if it *never* exists, that would not impact the reality of ADHD *as a diagnostic category*.

What Hitchens calls the nightmare of this, referring to lobotomies, isn't about ADHD, it would be about what is being done in response to an ADHD diagnosis. I disagree that it's horrible, at least in the cases I've seen. Which, of course, includes myself, but also my brother (who is now 74), and others I know. The idea of drugged kids is dramatic, but isn't a realistic picture of what a kid on the small doses of stimulant drugs being used is like. But even if it were horrible, the controversy, then, would be over the treatment, not the behavioral syndrome. Perhaps he would claim that these are just normal kids and they should be left alone.... which is equivalent to a claim that the disorder is only an apparent disorder. But an apparent disorder is, in fact, a disorder. Lots of diseases and disorders are transient, need no special treatment except perhaps some symptomatic relief. They are in the books, and it can be reassuring to a parent to know that what their kid has is usually harmless. And, indeed, sometimes a relatively harmless disease is treated aggressively, doing more harm than the disease. What about prostate cancer? There is a huge controversy over this. By a certain age, most men, if they are thoroughly biopsied, will be found to have prostate cancer. But relatively few will die from it, because they die of something else first. On the other hand, prostate cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths among men. The question is what to do about it; often the answer is nothing. For many, the treatment would be worse than the disease. But not always. --Abd (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do keep trying. It's very simple. DSM-IV is a collection of subjective judgements, that is to say, opinions. . My definition of 'normal' (though I think I have generally used the word 'healthy') is in this case that there is nothing objectively wrong with the person. I thionk that's fairly straightforward and hard to challenge. Have a parallel: None of us minds astrologers and people who go on about star signs. They're welcome to believe this stuff if they want to. But if the US Federal government put an astrologer in charge of foreign or defence policy, people would be rightly worried and would question the claims of astrology with more vigour than they now do. The trouble with the collection of subjective opinions assembled in 'DSM-IV', and intellectually no more respectable than Madame Zoroastra's stars column in the Bloomington 'Bee',  is that it is the basis for the physical prescription of powerful objective drugs. It is the mismatch between subjective diagnosis and objective prescription that is the problem. If the 'ADHD' zealots stuck to head massage and group therapy, which are at the same level as their la-la 'diagnosis' I wouldn't care. Didn't the APA, origin of the DSM-IV, once classify homosexuality as a disorder? And didn't they then abandon this? And was homosexuality a different thing before and after this change? Why, no, it was the same. It was the APA's opinion ( and moral and cultural fashion) that had altered, and such classifications are and always will be a matter of opinion, not fact.  I have made this simple point repeatedly, and my opponents in this argument have shown no sign of understanding it, nor made any attempt to rebut it. It is as if they cannot see it. I can only assume that their prejudices make them inaccessible to logic, or scientific method. This is more common than people think, and they shoudl watch out in case the APA categorises it as a 'disorder' and starts to stuff them with pills for it. Stranger things can and do happen.   Objective evidence, anyone? PH, logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone please add misdiagnosed ADHD to this article!
Every few days I see a colleagues younger brother in his home and I can instantly tell he has ADHD Though the parents deny it. They took him for testing and modifed his behavior telling him to never be distracted. They refuse medication and so on and so I go to wikipedia to see how often this sort of thing may happen. People are not seeing other ADHD cases and I would love to see a small portion of this article telling people how often this disorder is misdiagnosed. Please and thank you? Good idea bad? Is it gonna happen? Psychonautic (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest you dig yourself? Use these two words to search with: EPIDEMIOLOGY and ADHD. The article is skimpy in that section and I'll help you if you would like that to edit the section.--scuro (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, this response is fairly common, I've run into it. Telling an ADHD kid to "never be distracted" is like telling someone who is nearsighted to see better by trying harder. The problem with distraction is that it isn't recognized as such. That is, I don't think, "Okay, I'm not going to pay attention to my wife now, she's boring." Rather, I'm listening to her, and I think about what she says. And one thought leads to another. With *extraordinary* concentration and explicit attention, I can just listen. Unfortunately, this frequently means that I don't understand what she is saying and I certainly can't remember it.

Those parents are, in my view, abusing their child, if what has been said is accurate. Behind it is often a belief that ADHD symptoms represent defiance or moral defect. If this continues, the likelihood of that kid becoming even more seriously dysfunctional grows, and a high percentage become drug addicts or alcoholics. If the parents could see beyond what seem to be their rigid ideas, they might discover that they have a great kid who simply needs to be understood, to be supported in what he does well, and not to be expected to do what he can't do. ADHD kids can perform, sometimes, well above normal *if supported.*

The article already discusses how common ADHD is. I do think some better discussion of medication would be in order. The fact that the medications prescribed are generally very low-dose stimulants isn't mentioned. These are doses that the parents might not even notice if they took them. Again, there is commonly a moral judgment about drugs, and some people choose to treat ADHD without drugs. Diet can be important. But drugs are only a small part of the treatment of ADHD, the most important part is understanding what it is, how people with ADHD think, what they typically can and cannot do. No parent should be dismayed to discover that their child has ADHD. Unless they are strongly hoping that their child will be merely "normal." While not all ADHD kids are geniuses, quite a few are! And all will do better if better understood, and they need to understand themselves as well. I'd recommend Driven to Distraction, by Hallowell and another author, both MDs, both with ADHD themselves. --Abd (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A contrived controversy? which is sourced to a secondary source...all the more reason for excellent citations for ADHD controversies
According to a 1990 article by Joel Sappell and Robert W. Welkos in the Los Angeles Times, part of a series of articles about Scientology, "the uproar over Ritalin was triggered almost single-handedly by the Scientology movement." The Citizens Commission on Human Rights, an anti-psychiatry group formed by Scientology in 1969, conducted a major campaign against Ritalin in the 1980s and lobbied Congress for an investigation of Ritalin. Cass Ballenger, a member of the House Education and Labor Committee who met with the Citizens Commission said that "some of the information they provided did not 'add up.'" For example, the article mentions that the Committee claimed a figure of 10-20% of students under age 10 on Ritalin in a particular school district, to which the manager of health services for the district replied, "if they are saying that is the statistic ... they are lying," stating that the percentage of students taking Ritalin or any stimulant for hyperactivity was actually under 1%. Scientology publications identified the "real target of the campaign" as "the psychiatric profession itself" and claimed the campaign "brought wide acceptance of the fact that (the commission) [sic] and the Scientologists are the ones effectively doing something about [...] psychiatric drugging". --scuro (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If it is reliably sourced (the Times article should qualify), this should be in the Ritalin article, with perhaps brief mention in the Controversies article. --Abd (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If the major current issue of this talk page is the controversy of ADHD and ADHD treatment, this definitely has to be vetted out before we start sticking labels onto this article. This is in the controversies article, that is where I directly quoted from.--scuro (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This was the point of conceding mention of the controvery in the lead. The reader should indeed know that there is controversy. Ideally, they should know, briefly, what the controversy is over. However, the status quo is that controversy over the very existence of ADHD isn't an issue sufficiently notable to justify more than that many words in the main article, if that. We have controversy over "the existence of ADHD." As what? Before it is in this article, we need to be clear about that. What exactly are the critics claiming when they claim that ADHD doesn't exist? The DSM is a pipe dream, everyone reading it is having a mass hallucination, the category isn't actually there> Sure, this is preposterous, but so is claiming that a certain diagnostic category doesn't exist. But ... what *is* ADHD, that the category is attempting to identify? This, in fact, is controversial, and the controversy is not limited to fringe theorists and Scientologists. However ... tick ... tick ... tick. Reliable sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 13:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The critics are not 'claiming' anything, they are saying, what is abolutely true and undeniable, that the DSM contains no objective diagnostic tools, and lacks objective scientific information on the nature of this supposed complaint. They are saying that the burden of proof lies upon those who wish to traet this speculative stuff as established fact. The critics cannot prove a negative because that is impossible to do. There is no scientific journal containing articles about how things haven't been proved, to which the critics can direct the believers(perhaps there should be, but there isn't). The supporters, much more importantly, cannot prove a positive, which if they were as right as they were certain, they would be able to do. If the thing unquestionably existed, there'd be an objective proof for it. As long as there isn't, it remains a matter of opinion and axiomatically a matter of controversy. And until they do come up with objective scientific proof, they should stop acting as if half a ton of graeco-latin waffle on fancy headed paper adds up to proof of anything, and making sneery remarks about 'fringe', or attemting to claim that all the sceptics are Scientologists. One day, one of the 'ADHD' supporters will get this simple point. If not, anyone care to buy Brooklyn Bridge? PH signed in as Clockback (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to copy Mr. Hutchin's comment one statement at a time, because otherwise the commentary will be much clumsier. Understand that I'm doing this because I think that there is something to be examined here, specifically the foundation of the controversy. Unless that is understood, the controversy will rage with no side understanding where the real disagreement lies. It appears to me to be about much more than ADHD, but we may need to understand it to approach the ADHD issues. Indented material is from Mr. Hutchins.


 * ''The critics are not 'claiming' anything, they are saying, what is abolutely true and undeniable, that the DSM contains no objective diagnostic tools, and lacks objective scientific information on the nature of this supposed complaint.

Does Mr. Hutchins mean what he writes? Is he careful about his language? I'm going to assume, here, that he means exactly what he says, that his choice of words is not accidental. This may not be true, and if it is not, he is, of course, welcome to say, "No, I didn't mean that, the words were not exact, they were not the right choice." Or whatever.

First of all, there are many critics, coming from various positions. Are they all saying what is "absolutely true and undeniable"? We could, for the article, ask Mr. Hutchins for reliable source for this statement, but I'm setting that aside, and am asking Mr. Hutchins how he knows what is "absolutely true," and what is "undeniable." Is it possible that he errs? Is it possible that they err? What is the difference between "absolutely true," and merely "true"? Or merely "appears to me to be true"? When something is "undeniable," we generally think of being faced with direct evidence, so plain that no reasonable person, seeing it, could deny the conclusion that is being asserted. What is the basis for Mr. Hutchins making this very strong statement. What is the source of his knowledge, and, even more to the point, does he have an special knowledge on which he is basing his claim -- and I mean the claim in the quoted sentence -- that the rest of us do not have. Or are we overlooking what we know? However, note, I haven't examined the substance of the claim yet, only his preface to it. Is he correct, is it undeniable, and, more to the point, is it the controversy we face here?

What is he asserting, that is "absolutely and undeniably true?" DSM-IV contains, in the section we are concerned with, diagnostic criteria which allow a clinician to establish a diagnosis of ADHD. This is, in fact, a definition of ADHD. It is not a proof of anything. It does not pretend to be a proof. ADHD is a *category*, a name for a constellation. Does Orion exist? Apparently, there has been sufficient research and exploration into the constellation of symptoms involved that it has been found useful to give it a label. DSM-IV communicates the applicability of the label, such that a clinician can note a correspondence between the symptoms listed and those presented by the patient. Are these "objective diagnostic tools"? ADHD is a behavioral condition. What is an "objective tool" for diagnosing such a disorder? Every symptom is identified by the clinician through observation or report. The clinician may observe movement of the patient, and has a sense of how common these patterns of movement are. People in relationship with the patient may report patterns of behavior. This is subjective, to be sure, but subjective and objective aren't absolutes, as Mr. Hutchins seems to think. Ultimately, everything we experience, everything we name, every analysis we make, is "subjective." But that doesn't mean that there is not a relative scale of subjective/objective. DSM-IV describes the symptoms in such a way as to allow a clinician to identify the behaviors with *reasonable* confidence that the diagnosis would be made in the same way, with the same observations, by another clinician following DSM-IV. This, if it has been done properly -- one could disagree -- is relatively objective. There is, essentially, a checklist, and so many checks for such and such a period of time justifies the diagnosis. Which merely is a diagnostic category, a means of comparing the clinician's observations with those of others who have made similar observations. It says nothing about causation, in itself, nor does it prescribe treatment, nor does it even identify the constellation as a problem. Except, of course, for the words "deficit" and "disorder" and possibly "hyperactivity."

However, these words aren't part of the definition. Nevertheless, the symptoms do refer to conditions that can justify these labels, they refer, generally, to some kind of impaired behavior, behavior that is considered deficient by the patient or by others. This, as well, is subjective. I'll address this elsewhere. But if we consider whether I'm paying attention, say, to my children or not, we could quantify it. How often, relatively, when my daughter comes to me and says "Daddy," do I not respond? Is this lack of response, sometimes, unusual? If it is substantially less than normal, it's a "disorder," an "impairment." Unless, of course, I'm *choosing* not to respond to her. I can guarantee that I'm not. I'm only aware that she is trying to get my attention retroactively, if at all. (With age, I often have no recollection at all of her effort, when I was younger, I could recover it from my short-term memory of the sounds I was hearing. But then, as now, she might have to try several times, and maybe tug on my sleeve, to get my attention.)


 * ''They are saying that the burden of proof lies upon those who wish to traet this speculative stuff as established fact.

''What speculative stuff"? The book is about as objective a fact as I can imagine. You can use it to keep papers from blowing away. The text may be read, and it decodes and seems to make sense. The criteria can be applied, and a diagnosis -- which is not a determination of *cause*, it is the application of a classifying label, a label established by convention, by agreement in a profession, a name for an identified pattern of behavior. What alleged fact is claimed in DSM-IV that the critics don't consider to be true? Do they think that ADHD is some "thing" independently defined, and that the characteristics described in the book don't match it, as if, for example, a claim that my African daughter has blond hair or blue eyes. However, ADHD *is* the diagnostic category described. Mr. Hitchens elswhere approaches what his real objection is, I haven't answered that yet.


 * ''The critics cannot prove a negative because that is impossible to do. There is no scientific journal containing articles about how things haven't been proved, to which the critics can direct the believers(perhaps there should be, but there isn't). The supporters, much more importantly, cannot prove a positive, which if they were as right as they were certain, they would be able to do.

What thing? Of course the critics can't prove a negative, but neither can a book giving the definitions of categories *prove* that the category is as is described. It's like proving an axiom. Prove that what we see when we look up, outside, on a clear day, is the "sky." Maybe there is a painted backdrop surrounding the world. Oh. If there were, it would be the sky. That thing we see when we look up.

I see something here that I've noticed before about Hitchen's argument. He seems to think that the activity of science is proving this or that. But, outside of mathematics, the word "proof" is rarely used in science. As I wrote before, were Newton's laws of motion "proven"? No, they were experimentally confirmed, within the limitations of the experiments. Indeed, those laws only describe the behavior of mass and force, they do not prove that mass and force are "real." Are they real? Prove it!


 * ''If the thing unquestionably existed, there'd be an objective proof for it. As long as there isn't, it remains a matter of opinion and axiomatically a matter of controversy.

Please show me an example of the "objective proof" of the existence of any behavioral disorder, so I can know what is being claimed to be necessary! Or is there a claim that there is no such thing as a behavioral disorder? What is "it"? Is there any controversy that there is a diagnostic category called ADHD? Who is claiming that this diagnostic category doesn't exist? Yes, there are people who claim that *something* doesn't exist. What is it that they claim does not exist? The category? But that's preposterous. So it must be something else. What is it? (This is a familiar semantic problem. What is "God"?)

According to the principle enunciated here, the definition of any word would be controversial. No. Words are defined by convention, an agreement between those who communicate with them.

Suppose we are recording coin tosses. We record the number of the toss and whether it was a head or not. Then we identify patterns in the tosses. For example, we could count the occurrence of eight heads in a row, and we call this a "run." Now, does a run exist? Now change this. Record the behavioral symptoms of patients, and do this for many patients. Classify these behaviors into patterns that are noticed. Give these patterns names. Now, prove that they exist.

Well, there is the record we kept. Is that objective? How do I know that it was really a head and not a tail, maybe my eyes tricked me, I was distracted, I recorded the wrong thing. Besides, what if there is nothing there but pure random accidents. How would we tell? Well, we'd look for correlations. Is one run correlated with another, such that when a run is found, more often than not, there is another run after it according to some criterion, or is there no correlation. (If the coin tosses are random, there is no correlation. With ADHD, there are patients who show the symptoms. *Therefore ADHD exists*. Now, what does this mean? That's another question!

Is the ADHD diagnosis related to some condition, such that it is not merely a random association of symptoms, of no more meaning than the coin tosses I describe? This can be and has been studied, you know. Negative association, contrary to Mr. Clockback's assertion, *can* be shown. It's not *proof*, but strong evidence, if the constellation were meaningless, which is the only way I can sensibly understand Clockback's position, could be adduced. The "run" could be shown to be no more and no less meaningful than any other specific eight-bit pattern. If the coin is fair. Statistical proof. Is statistical proof acceptible? Or does Clockback want some mathematical proof? Or what? No example of what proof would look like has been given. And, actually, he's been asked more than once to address this issue. He just ignores it, or, once, claimed it wasn't relevant, after all, we are talking about ADHD, not the other behavioral conditions brought up by Scuro.

The question, what it is that Mr. Hitchens is asking about, has not been made clear. ADHD is a diagnostic category; however, the article does treat it as if it were a thing. This is a linguistic convention, and it's common. An article about schizophrenia will treat it as a noun referring to something physical entity. Whether or not schizophrenia is a physical entity or not is actually irrelevant to its diagnosis (at present). And, indeed, Mr. Hutchins elsewhere treats a subjective category as if it were an objective reality, he refers to nothing being "wrong" with a patient. How would we diagnose that?

I'll assert that there is nothing wrong with anyone, period. Unless we define "wrong." What does that mean? Is Hutchins claiming that there is nothing "wrong" with my not noticing that my daughter is trying to get my attention? That there is nothing wrong with my putting everything off until the last minute, a habit I have struggled greatly against, with little success? (I've managed to get through life, raising one family and now another, with external support, which sometimes I get from others, and sometimes I get from systems I've set up, but maintaining my own systems is, again, very difficult. They fall apart. Anyone who has struggled with ADHD will recognize this. Someone else, inclined to moralization, will simply say that I'm irresponsible. Is there any thing "wrong" with being irresponsible? Who says that responsibility is better than irresponsibility?


 * ''And until they do come up with objective scientific proof, they should stop acting as if half a ton of graeco-latin waffle on fancy headed paper adds up to proof of anything, and making sneery remarks about 'fringe', or attemting to claim that all the sceptics are Scientologists.

I've seen no reliable source for that claim that "all skeptics are Scientologists," and Hutchins is perhaps mistaking his interpretation of the efforts of an anti-fringe activist as the consensus in the field: the great "they" that those like Mr. Hutchins love to decry with such fervor. Once again, there is a failure to specify what he's talking about. *Who* are "they"? Where do "they" perform these actions that they should stop? What does "should" mean? Is it an objective modifier? Who decides what should and should not be done? Mr. Hitchens? Or me? Or Scuro? Or the Wikipedia community, through its quirky processes? Or the scientific community, the collective intelligence of the entire body of researchers and analysts? Or what? Is "should" a matter of absolute truth, such that nobody's opinion matters? Who "sneers"? Because one user on Wikipedia makes a weird remark, why should a sober and respectable columnist tar an entire community with what he says? Is he, the one allegedly sneering, typical in some way? If so, of what? Is he a scientist? (He doesn't write like one, but maybe he's studying.) How do we "sneer" in print? (Mr. Hutchins might know the answer to this quite well.)


 * ''One day, one of the 'ADHD' supporters will get this simple point. If not, anyone care to buy Brooklyn Bridge? PH signed in as Clockback (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Brooklyn Bridge! Where's the beef? What point? And, a stopped Clockback is right twice a day. How's that for rhetorical brilliance, eh?

There is something which I've been aware of since I started writing on-line more than twenty years ago. This all sticks around. Todays' heated argument can be read tomorrow, or next year, and quite possibly a hundred years from now. If, indeed, Mr. Hutchins is a lone (or almost lone) beacon of truth, unjustly repressed by the rest of us, it will be visible. And if he is a tired old crank, unable to understand cogent arguments if they "lick him on the nose," which is something like what he wrote elsewhere, that too will be visible. I've been leaving a record for the last twenty years, and I look back at it from time to time. I've certainly grown, I made arguments then that I would not make today, but ... some writers, pretty clearly, don't look back and don't expect to. We might see more productive arguments if they did.

Don't mistake any of this as an argument for the "reality" of ADHD. Dr. Slobo, elsewhere, has addressed this issue brilliantly and with nuance.--Abd (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC) --Abd (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

75.216.102.185 (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)way to long for me to read (ADD sufferer, thats ADHD sans the H) ruthven78

moving good stuff from the controversies section onto this page
I've moved concerns about labeling onto this page. Several notable people in the field have commented on this and it should be on this article because it is not controversial.--scuro (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved genetic stuff from the controversies article here. Not a perfect edit...but that is okay. Perhaps someone can clean that up. --scuro (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RDS: Reward Deficiency Syndrome
Hi,

According to Dr. Hallowell's Delivered From Distraction (ISBN-13: 978-0345442314), patients with ADHD have some traits of Reward Deficiency Syndrome. I edited the RDS article just to add an additional definition to the acronym. I don't have time to start an article about Reward Deficiency Syndrome right now, but there are tons of case studies on the internet available. I'm just posting this here as it is likely that contributors for the ADHD article might have some interest in contributing to RDS as well. --Pinnecco (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Neurodiversity
This subject of the article really needs to be fixed, its just thrown in there, like it just has to be there, but in the least possible quality. It needs more info or to be deleted.

Killroy (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed it because it was not a majority scientific view and was not sourced. Sifaka   talk  02:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove redundancy
I replaced this:"Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), or Hyperkinetic Disorder, is considered by researchers in the field to be a neurobehavioural developmental disorder[1] [2] [3]"

With this: "Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), or Hyperkinetic Disorder, is a neurobehavioural developmental disorder[1] [2] [3]"

There's no need to say: "is considered" since that's a given and sources are already presented anyway.

Moving the controversy section out of the opening and into a paragraph near the end

 * Sifaka  talk  changed the title of this section from the non-descriptive "Major Changes" to the current title at 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed some stuff which did not appear to conform to a majority viewpoint in the scientific community. You can see the comparison between versions here. My primary motivation for doing so is the undue weight Wikipedia policy. The existence of ADHD is a non-issue for the majority of in-the-field scientists, psychiatrists, psychologists.. etc (see the APA for example). According to the Wikipedia policy, in order to maintain the article's NPOV the majority of the ADHD controversy needs to be confined to the controversy about ADHD page. I used the following pages as guides for my decision, Evolution, Vaccine, and September 11, 2001 attacks. To compare ADHD to evolution for instance a large number of Americans do not believe in evolution, the vast majority of practicing biologists and other such scientists do believe in evolution, thus evolution is dealt with in its main page article with the full weight of scientific fact behind it.

To keep with NPOV, I also moved the controversy section out of the opening and replaced it with a slightly older version which focuses less on the the minority debate on whether ADHD exists or not and more the much larger diversity of views that exist in the scientific community on various aspects of ADHD which I believe is important. Other articles with potentially contentious topics that have broad backing from scientists and/or officials do not link to a controversy section in the opening (see examples above).

Sifaka  talk  02:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

revert by 82.37.222.47 (2/4/08) and subsequent re-revert
I re-reverted the article to my version. I have read the discussion above about whether or not to mention the controversy section in the introduction. User:scuro wrote a paragraph for the introduction that attempted to summarize in an NPOV manner the critical viewpoint; however, the issue of whether or not the controversy section belonged in the introduction was never resolved in the first place.

I stated my reasons above about why I think the controversy section is inappropriate in the introduction. It is true that I could have first fielded the proposal to move the controversy section on the talk page first and waited for a consensus; however, in my experience I get little response so I wind up instituting the changes anyway and only then do people comment. This time I chose to cut to the chase and be bold, but if you felt I acted improperly, please let me know. In general, I would like to have a discussion about whether or not the controversy section should belong in the introduction. Sifaka  talk  20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Sifaka, I reverted you as we've been through the discussion of placement of the link to controversy before but maybe you weren't in on that, so basically as there are two articles the link needs to be in the intro to give readers the full picture as they are reading through - placing right down the bottom like that gives undue weighting as peoples minds will be made up before they get there or they probably won't get that far and look for a controversy (who would, one wouldn't). Just for good writing practice the intro is supposed to introduce the elements discussed in the article and doubt/controversy about ADHD is one of those elements. Luckily, as there are two articles the link can be placed in the intro and that's it but there is an ongoing discussion as to including more about the controversy in this article. The appropriate presentation/weight of the controversy must be reflected in the controversy article itself, obviously. Sorry my user didn't show earlier, I've had trouble with my link today and the whole thing gave up on me so I couldn't put this comment on sooner. Miamomimi (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's lucky you were on and could give a prompt reply! It might be good if we can request comments on whether or not the controversy section belongs in the introduction from the other editors. There are two other sections that I am concerned about in the article. The neuro-diversity section is not sourced and not mentioned as controversial, which needs to be rectified. I also have concerns about mentioning this per Undue weight. The second section impacts of labeling belongs in the controversy article, as it is quite long and definitely has issues with undue weight and is similarly not mentioned as controversial. I'm going to move the impact of labeling section to the controversy article, leave the neurodiversity section but request citations and note it as controversial. Finally I am going to change the controversy bit, but leave it in the introduction, because it does not weight the issues about ADHD equally. I'm just going to go ahead and do it just to get it in the article history and we can edit and find consensus and get some of the other editors to state their opinions. Sifaka   talk  21:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Word of note for later disambiguation. I still support that the removal of the controversy section from the intro (moving it somewhere else in the article) and I do not believe that the neurodiversity section has enough widespread support to warrant a place in the causes section or even the main ADHD page unless an appropriate source is found. The above edits which were carried out were intended as a compromise until a satisfactory discussion on the issues could be held. Sifaka   talk  22:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But a long drawn out discussion has already been held and mention of the controversy and link to the article already accepted in the intro. Miamomimi (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The consensus/acceptance from other editors happened some time ago regarding mention of the controversy article in the intro which is why I reverted. I've not had anything to do with the neuro-diversity bit but Scuro, Abd, Clockback and Barrylb have recently done quite a bit of work on the article in general. I would flag up a word of caution when considering the weight of opinion in that opinion does differ to some degree in different countries and I'll be working on that myself soon; including citations to reflect the different viewpoints in different countries - the whole world is not the USA! To avoid weasel words I think a clearer picture is necessary and I think that may sit best in the controversy article with a mention here, but I too will be inviting other editors views. Regards, Miamomimi (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the consensus was that for the time being the link to the controversy article would stay. Other editors were supposed to find good secondary links describing the controversy. These links should have been found by now so editors lets see what you have found. If we hear nothing in short order we can discuss reworking the intro. Personally I believe the labeling section should stay. It is well sourced and you have direct quotes leading figures. Labeling is an issue and not controversial, you have quotes from a wide spectrum on labeling. Neurodiversity is a little more iffy...I haven't really dug for sources. Perhaps someone else can look?--scuro (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure thing Scuro, I've got some links but I'm trying to formulate them into points, you know; that and that supports this and that other one supports that. I'll pop by your user talk page if I get stuck for help if that's ok? More later tonight.. Miamomimi (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The major part of the reason I moved the labeling section was that it was not written in an appropriate tone (didn't have time to fix it though) and was rather long. It looked more like it came out of an essay and was overly florid. Additionally, labeling is a quite widespread, well-documented concern and it seems to fit more naturally into the ADHD controversy page which is supposed to address the concerns related to ADHD diagnosis, treatment, etc. Looking back at my earlier response above, I regret using the word "controversial" especially when I used the word "controversial" to describe the neurodiversity theory too. What I should have said was that some psychologists worry about it, others don't. Although I removed the labeling section completely from the main page I think it is still worth mentioning in the main article. (shameless_plug) If we created a separate controversy, concerns, issues, section we could stick a sentence about it there and connect it to the specific section in the controversy article. (/shameless_plug) :) Sifaka   talk  22:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do me a favour and don't change the article before posting the edit in here. Think about the attribution and notability of the source...also consider exactly what exactly has been said by whom.--scuro (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Links to controversy
I thought it best to work in bite sized chunks and started with the intro to the ADHD controversy article. Please view and record any response on the controversy talk page. Thankyou. Miamomimi (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Slash in the title
ADHD is not an attention-deficit type of hyperactivity disorder -- rather, it is a disorder of both or either of attention deficiency and hyperactivity. Therefore, I propose that it be written as "attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder" (with a slash) througout, and that the title of the page be changed accordingly as well.198.54.202.166 (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

attribution and the intro?
Why not attribute exactly who states that it is a disorder and who states that it is controversial? Wiki asks us to attribute where the controversies come from. As mentioned earlier the term "diverse" is too all encompassing, it is like the word "some". If attribution is more specific the reader knows ahead of time what the controversies article is about before they hit the link. So please explain why the intro was reverted.--scuro (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

more thoughts on controversy
In my mind I had always considered that the term "controversy" had been overplayed because the medical and scientific community don't really talk in terms of controversy when they communicate amongst each other. But controversy is mentioned in the popular media and is certainly expounded upon by certain individuals, religions, and advocacy groups.--scuro (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Was this article written by the major manufactures of branded Methylphenidate?
Just a thought. Also, what the hell is this nonsense: "The scientific consensus in the field, and the consensus of the national health institutes of the world.." perhaps if this was replaced with consensus of the American Health Institutes and governments influenced by multinational drug company lobbyists. Always seemed a bit odd that the America has the highest diagnose rate of this "disease" per 100 compared the rest of the "western World". Or is it simply that some how North American society is especially effective at producing nurophsyiologically "ill" people?

To put it simply, where the hell is the criticisms of diagnostic systems used in in classifying children/adults with ADHD? I am not saying that it may not exist - although again the classifying of certain behavior as a mental illness sin ply because it does not fit in with a particular societies expectations is always dangerous - but the article simply lacks any mention of this. Really2012back (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Show me the national health institute or national scientific body from any country in the world that claims that ADHD is fake. The criticism is in the whole article devoted to controversy. The link is in the second paragraph. We are working at a consensus and hopefully some day the articles will merge together. You could help us by sharing knowledge with proper citations. You may wish to work on the controversies page if this is where your interest is. --scuro (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Psychiatric diagnosis of the western world are made according to DSM-4. So we are all under APA and American treatments. These drugs are global drugs. Iatrogenic disease, side effects, withdrawal symptoms PSSD and all the rest are also a global problem. So it's impossible to find different classifications and treatments. Fortunately people are becoming more and more aware of this problem for there's a huge amount of data for those who have the a suspicion on the harm all these drugs promote. Inventing diseases or renaming them in order to sell expensive drugs is being highly criticized. Despite the Scuro Army, people are not that stupid. It comes a time when people hear other peoples testimonies and stories and start searching for reliable information that are not the official approach. --Justana (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is incomplete without a thorough discussion of the works of Thom Hartmann
This article is incomplete without a thorough discussion of the works of Thom Hartmann. I suggest that one start out by reading his book entitled "The Edison Gene."

Rather than being a disorder, ADHD is merely a case of a small percentage of our population still possessing a preponderance of "throwback" Hunter/Gatherer genes (instead of a preponderance of Farmer genes).

Being a Hunter in a Farmer's world takes some doing, but it can be done. Simply look at all the Greats of All Time that had ADHD. Edison, Einstein, Lincoln, the list is VERY long... 06:51, 16 February 2008 24.136.22.140 Sig added by Sifaka   talk  01:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC) *note this IP is NOT Sifaka

Every disorder seems to claim the greats...ie look under Asbergers and genius and you will see that they claim Einstein and others also. The mensa folks try to claim they were free of disorder, they want their geniuses pure. There is no scientific evidence that Hartmann's theory holds any water.--scuro (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose the controversy page is an option... Sifaka   talk  06:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with someone like Hartmann or the neurodiversity theory. Both theories are plausible but unlikely. Neither has support in the academic world and I don't believe either theory is controversial. These are social theories and there is little debate or strife with academics. They don't talk to each other. They are on two different levels. What do you do with these theories? Any thoughts? --scuro (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been thinking about related things in order to try to better organize the ADHD controversy page. There are controversies associated with renaming/relabeling, but they are mostly political, rather than scientific.
 * There are a bunch of social theories for ADHD, like neurodiversity and whatnot that basically suggest ADHD is not a disorder (i.e brain malfunction), but is simply functioning differently. All it really does is change the name, not the nature of ADHD. There are controversies associated with renaming/relabeling, and a quote from the controversy of labeling section sums up well the potential trouble that calling ADHD within the normal range of human behavior causes. "There are special education laws with the Americans with Disabilities Act, for example, mentioning ADHD as an eligible condition. If you change the label, and again refer to it as just some variation in normal temperament, these people will lose access to these services, and will lose these hard-won protections that keep them from being discriminated against. . . ."
 * I guess I am not really sure where to put them myself. I think it would be nice if we re-organized the ADHD controversy page where most of them reside now. Instead of each view having a whole condensed "blurb" for each under the Alternative theories section, it might be nice to organize it instead by issues with each alternative theory stating their view on that particular issue. Potential issues might be
 * Is ADHD a disorder (i.e. a brain malfunction) or within the normal range of human behavior?

It is a deviation from the "normal" or "average" functionality of the brain
 * Do people with ADHD have a distinct phenotype, i.e. is ADHD real?

Yes, ADD HAS Neurological tracks i.e. you can SEE it. It just involves a series of expensive and complicated tests.
 * How should ADHD be treated, if at all. With meds? No meds?

This is really a subjective question. I would prefer no meds, but without them I just can't really get any work done.
 * What causes ADHD?

The most likely cause is a deficit of dopamine, a key neurotransmitter in the brain. This is how ADD meds work, they pump you full of the transmitter and some calming agents to cool the Hyperactivity.

>>>All previous information I gathered through various hours of extensively annoying various psychiatrists and psychologists, reading a few books and doing some minor research. Anyone who can back these claims with sources, please do. seeing as how I really can't remember the books I read this from, and can't cite my doctors. This might make the essentials of each view easier to understand and could make it easier to compare viewpoints with each other and mainstream scientific theory. Sifaka  talk  19:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

coming together and reorganizing the two articles
Take a look at other mental disorders on wiki, such as Aspergers, BiPolar, Tourettes...you don't see a controversy page. You don't see a controversy section. Hunter/ Gather and Neurodiversity deserve their own webpage. I had heard of these theories before coming here. What should be done is to have a sub- subheading within the main article titled alternative theories, brief mention should be made of each theory and how they differ from the other alternative theories, and they should be linked out for readers so they can read on the subject in greater detail. These are not controversial subjects with regards to adhd. Controversy seems to be most linked to medication and that is the topic that most citable critics focus on. By collecting all that that does not agree with mainstream thought on ADHD we have created undue weight by giving too much attention to some ideas and not enough to truly controversial minority opinion. --scuro (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The ADHD controversy article has a dietary subsection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#Dietary_Link_to_ADHD and the question is why is this controversial? There is no real debate here. On that talkpage, I suggested using what was on this article and merging it with what is on that article which has been done(see below). Now I am suggesting importing that material onto the main adhd article into the causes section.


 * Right now this ADHD article speaks to the issue in two different sections.In the causes section we have a single line.


 * Despite the lack of evidence that nutrition causes ADHD,[31] studies have found that malnutrition is correlated with attention deficits.[32]


 * and then we have a separate section


 * Complicating factors


 * Many studies point to synthetic preservatives and artificial coloring agents aggravating ADD & ADHD symptoms in those affected.[35][36] Older studies were inconclusive quite possibly due to inadequate clinical methods of measuring offending behavior. Parental reports were more accurate indicators of the presence of additives than clinical tests. [37] Several major studies show academic performance increased and disciplinary problems decreased in large non-ADD student populations when artificial ingredients, including artificial colors were eliminated from school food programs.[38][39].


 * I'm suggesting replacing those two sections with this one edited piece.


 * It is believed that there are several different causes of ADHD. Roughly 75 percent of ADHD is considered genetic in nature. Environmental agents also cause ADHD. These agents, such as alcohol, tobacco, and lead, are believed to stress babies prenatally and cause ADHD. Studies have found that malnutrition is also correlated with attention deficits. Diet seems to cause ADHD symptoms or make them worse. Many studies point to synthetic preservatives and artificial coloring agents aggravating ADD & ADHD symptoms in those affected.[35][36] Older studies were inconclusive quite possibly due to inadequate clinical methods of measuring offending behavior. Parental reports were more accurate indicators of the presence of additives than clinical tests. [37] Several major studies show academic performance increased and disciplinary problems decreased in large non-ADD student populations when artificial ingredients, including artificial colors were eliminated from school food programs.[38][39]. Professor John Warner stated, “significant changes in children’s hyperactive behaviour could be produced by the removal of artificial colourings and sodium benzoate from their diet.” and “you could halve the number of kids suffering the worst behavioural problems by cutting out additives”. Roughly 5% of children with ADHD are helped significantly when their diets are restricted. The vast majority of these children are believed to have food allergies.--scuro (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Question
Why does ADD (Attention-deficit disorder) redirect to ADHD? They are different disorders although similar, as I assuming. -- penubag  (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think because the medical world is tending towards making ADHD the primary category with inattentive being a sub-disorder. cyclosarin (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, I was looking for that answer -- penubag  (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Brain Scan Images Should Be Removed
The brain scan images by Zametkin are clearly flawed. One can see from the noise level that the "normal" brain false color image is scaled with a higher dynamic range than the "ADHD" brain. This is at best misleading, and as such it should not be the only visual on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.44.9 (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

DAMP
Deficits in Attention, Motor control and Perception, which is the combination of ADHD and Developmental Coordination Disorder, has a notability tag. Since it's largely been rejected, and doesn't seem to have gained significant traction at any point, a stand-alone article is probably not the best way to present it. One option is to merge it into ADHD, perhaps as a single paragraph in the history section, or perhaps into a section on comorbidities. Another option is to merge it into the Christopher Gillberg article. If you have an opinion on this issue, please leave a note at the DAMP talk page. (I am not watching this page and will not see any comments left here.) Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)