This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I assume (hope) DJ won't mind me copying what he wrote on the main ADHD article talk page here, as I think it contains some useful resources.
"Here are some more links about the controversy. But I am sure they will not do as Scuro has his own beliefs.
First is a textbook on Developmental Psychopathology that describes the controversy well. This is a secondary source. http://books.google.com/books?id=UlQjE-Ka09sC&pg=PA358&dq=ADHD+controversy&ei=WivjSJLXF4TkygS_3I3iBA&sig=ACfU3U1RIgDI45e5ETkBaR8iWd929M1ysA#PPA358,M1
Next is the cyclopedia Britannica. Yes even more famous then wikipedia. It has a section on the controversy. This is a tertiary source. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/279477/attention-deficithyperactivity-disorder/216017/Controversy-mental-disorder-or-state-of-mind
Medscape discusses it. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/442882_5
How about the US government. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/adhdsum.htm
Another well know site. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=50774
The controversy is even discussed in the BJP. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/184/5/453
I know all these refers boil down to three political science profs to Scuro but... maybe they would actually provide a more balance picture of the who thing. That's just me though I think some people have already made up their minds. --Doc James (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.168.244 ( talk)
This page is about the controversy of ADHD and therefore the lead should reflect that. It does not need to start by talking about what ADHD is. ie. It does not and should not start with the same line as the ADHD page.
I have provided references from the medical community in the above section for Scuro to look at.
-- Doc James ( talk) 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is something more recent that writing about the ADHD controversy. It is published by the NHS and is endorsed by the UK government and the UK psychiatrists. It was published in Sept, 2008.
It speaks about all areas of the ADHD controversy and would count as an excellent secondary source.
http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG72FullGuideline.pdf
Is it normal for governments and psychiatric associations to endorse draft papers?-- scuro ( talk) 04:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
interesting issue. Were the pilots being treated for ADHD? Was the medication prescribed to someone for ADHD? If not I don't see that this is relevant to this article, although it might go in the article on amphetamines.-- Vannin ( talk) 02:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that these pilots respond to ADHD medications even though they do not have ADHD. And that these meds are used for this non specific response. The none specific nature of ADHD drugs causes some of the controversy arround the condition.
It is similar to the controversy arround steroids. We now have steroid wrestling and none steroid wrestling. Should we have the same for school. Amphetamine school and none amphetamine school. In a competitive world are steroid fair when used in the sports? Are amphetamines fair when used in school when some kids take them to gain an accedemic adventage when other kids are not? Both steroids and amphetamines are restricted drugs.
Both these are philosophical issues. Some feel steroids should be allowed others feel they shouldn't. The same applies to ADHD. There is a great documentary called bigger, stronger, faster that touches on the steroid issues and mentions ADHD aswell.
Here is an interesting issue http://www.slate.com/id/2118315/ -- Doc James ( talk) 18:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This is actual a bit different than antidepressants. Antidepressants do not make everyone who takes them happy. And on a side note they do not work for those who are mild, moderately, or severely depressed either. See depression page.
Stimulants are more like steroids. The are non specific in there action. I do agree that the wording was poor. Will work on phrasing the argument more clearly. Doc James ( talk) 19:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd disagree with you here as would the literature. Stimulants significantly reduce ADHD symptoms which have nothing to do with normal behaviour. The action is specific. While you may state that everyone focuses better on stimulants, that doesn't really touch on behaviour, after all ADHD is a behavioural disorder and we see that in school settings where hyperactive adhd kids have few if any friends, and these kids are constantly scored as being disruptive and not able to contain their own behaviour both physically and verbally. Medication allows these kids to function normally and again this has been documented. They don't turn into zombies, as we often hear from scientology, they act normal. Zombies can't make friends nor do they typically do well in school. So the drug works specifically on the symptoms and the action of the drug has been shown to work at the neuron level to allow reuptake to occur in a more natural manner.-- scuro ( talk) 04:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Given the current on-going RFC, this is not the time to make over 30 changes in one day. And it is not the time to go back to an old version of the article-- Vannin ( talk) 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/9/2/9/pages209292/p209292-9.php Doc James ( talk) 22:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030318
Will add info from it. -- Doc James ( talk) 03:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)----
Posted previously that no one would recommend stimulants for general use. I am however wrong and a number of scientist are doing just this and got it published in nature. [2]-- Doc James ( talk) 14:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be a copy of the ADHD controversy page however it is better in many ways.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Controversy-about-ADHD
-- Doc James ( talk) 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I have found were I came from. It is as old copy of this page. One that was present before Scuro started editting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies&oldid=92941637
-- Doc James ( talk) 18:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, talk about gutting an article. Unomi ( talk) 16:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
-- 24.151.119.232 ( talk) 06:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Dr James I've returned for a look after several months absence. I too am a psychiatrist and was eventually driven off by Scuro who I see remains here guarding these pages. I am very suspicious of his motives. That will make him ballistic but I am nearly convinced he is not a devoted independent editor My suspicion is that he will also win with you. After a while you realize you are wasting good time trying to take him on
This present talk page includes comments from the end of September 2008 to today, which is OK.
I've likely missed something, but it looks to me that Archive 1:February 2008 includes comments from about May 2006 to November 2008. It contains 562 kilobytes. Isn't that too huge? Some of it was moved there 28 March 2009 by Jmh649.
Seems to me that someone who knows how to do it, should divide up the present Archive and label the sections correctly. - Hordaland ( talk) 16:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following lines because they state nothing that hasn't already been said above or in other sections.
Sifaka
talk
05:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
"There is concern about the effects of an ADHD diagnosis on the mental state and self-esteem of patients.
[3]
[4] There is disagreement over the cause of ADHD and there are questions about research methodologies
[5], and skepticism toward its classification as a
mental disorder.
[3]"
Hi, I think that debunking or disputing secondary sources eg a review article with a primary source is not in keeping with reliable sources guidelines, Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Do you have a review article or meta-analysis which talks about Adult ADHD? I don't think that the ref should have been deleted based on primary sources disputing it considering it actually reviewed primary sources.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstood me, I was not saying don't challenge references, I was just saying I would like secondary sources (preferably more recent ones) and you have given me review articles which are more current and uptodate. I am happy with your revert of my edits. I think that this content dispute is now resolved. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It is fine, I understand why you said about RfC. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
As predicted the article has become a coatrack again. I've added the POV tag.-- scuro ( talk) 00:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I reverted for failure to outline problems with references or articles on talk page. You can't just say the article is biased and flag it. Do remember the article is on controversies so don't expect the article to be singing praises of ADHD and medications. Also when disputing articles, please cite sources for your dispute. Wikipedia works via reliable sources rather than readers opinions. Or else criticise current sources used. At present it appears you merely flagged the article based on POV.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Citation #12 (suffer the restless children) James, do you honestly believe, one is not required to verify your sources? If this were true anyone could post any source to support any birdbrained idea. In this instance, citation 12 supports this sentence, "most children who end up with a diagnosis of ADHD have normal behavior in the physician's office". Rick Maynes is an associate professor of political science. He is not qualified to have a scientific opinion. We could restate the sentence to, Rick Maynes, who is an associate professor of political science has the unqualifed opinion that... But what would be the point? Barkley merely points out that ADHD kids act worse at home. That doesn't mean that statistically they act normal in the Dr.'s office. Wasn't it Barkley who stated that the ADHD diagnosis is an easy diagnosis to make since the behaviour is so overt and hard to miss?
But all of this is besides the point. As Hordaland stated, the "biased" title like "suffer the restless children" does show the intention of the author, and that is to impart bias. I couldn't have made a better case of the citation's exclusion.-- scuro ( talk) 04:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Added to more references to back up the point.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
AS I HAVE STATED ABOVE I HAVE ADDED TWO MORE REFS. Will will keep the original as it is a secondary rather than a primary source ( one should not use only a primary source ) and the third is an educational site by Barkly's which is not very scholarly. -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You have not provided justification for the POV tag or why the reference should be removed.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not think it should be removed thus we do not have a silent consensus to remove it. -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we need an RfC to try to settle the question is ADHD controversial or not? :-) -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I would just revert unless good reasons for disputing neutrality are given on talk pages. Although you have been around these ADHD articles longer than I so maybe RfC is best next move.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree flagging for flimsy reasons can be disruptive editing. If things reach level of edit warring or talk page filling up with pointless arguments or similar then RfC I reckon.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest that certain editors become familiar with WP:OWNERSHIP and edit warring( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring) POV tags are not be removed at the whim of other editors.-- scuro ( talk) 03:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
A single revert or 2 reverts is not edit warring. You are abusing templates by sending them to my talk page accusing me of being engaged in an edit war after 1 revert. You are veing very aggressive, combative and unreasonable. Furthermore you are an experienced and established editor so I have no doubt that this is intentional on your part. You abuse templates and falsely accuse people of ownership. Having said this, I am not annoyed because all of this will be able to be brought up in RfC. I have no intention of reverting you if you revert me again, so don't even think of abusing templates again on my talk page. Infact don't ever post anything on my talk page again. I don't want to deal with you on my personal space as you are very antagonistic.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The tag clearly says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."
1) Where is the discussion on the talk page regarding the dispute?
2) What part of article is disputed?
3) It says don't remove tag until dispute (on talk page) is resolved. There is no dispute because you haven't stated what is disputed!
So the tag was removed. I think request for comments is warranted with a view of whether administrative action is required.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
(out)Scuro -- specifically, the doctor's office is a new and novel place for the child, which provides stimulations (visual, audible, tactile, interactive, ...) to an ADHD child which helps them with their self-control (it provides the same stimulations to the non-ADHD children, too, but they don't have the self-control problems which can be moderated by external stimuli.) There are many possible reasons for a child's behaviors. htom ( talk) 05:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
If you do not agree than find a reference that says something different.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'ver already demonstrated that the link is not appropriate. See above. What should happen is that it should be removed along with the sentence it supports. If you wish to look for another reference that supports the cited notion, the ball would be in your court.-- scuro ( talk) 15:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
All citations have a POV. If you think their POV has been challenged, then find a source to challenge it and cite it. Your POV of the POV in a citation is meaningless on wikipedia. You need to challenge it with a reliable source. You can't cite or de-cite yourself.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You folks have it backwards. Citations are either reliable or unreliable. In this instance I have made a strong case that is unreliable. I don't have to find another source to "counter" the original citation. It doesn't meet the standard. In wikipedia a citation's reliability has nothing to do with my personal feelings about the source. You might want to do some further reading. WP:RS-- scuro ( talk) 03:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Doc.
The source meets reliable sources guidelines Scuro. Guidelines don't say title of citation "has to be neutral". Your case is weak, not strong. If you have a superior reliable source then cite that and we can discuss things further. One VERY important point scuro. You do realise that if you win this dispute, that ALL of the antipsychiatry and scientology references will have to be deleted because they are WEAKER sources than the source that you are disputing. So you will make the article even more biased against your POV. I do know that newspapers generally not be used in medicine related articles for example. Sometimes they are appropriate and add to an article but if hotly disputed generally they should be deleted. The websites cited also are even worse and weaker than the newspaper articles. Hence those sections will have to be deleted then if ref 12 is deleted based on it not being a reliable enough source. I know that you are very much in favour of promoting the view that opposition to ADHD and amphetamine drugs in children is mostly a scientology conspiracy. Are you still happy to continue the dispute realising this?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
So you can read my mind. Frankly I don't care about the article anymore. What I care about is process that is not being followed because of page ownership issues. No attempt at consensus is being sought. The citation supports an observable fact. I've made my points why this citation is not a good scientific citation. You should be addressing these points instead of telling me I need a "counter" citation, or that if you don't give in we will change all the article. Consensus begins with agreeing with the obvious, not giving no quarter. Consensus begins with some stating, I agree with that point you made.-- scuro ( talk) 12:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/jmh649 Regards,-- scuro ( talk) 02:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I see now, that Doc James has created this Rfc in the ADHD controversies talk page with the following content:
This is a distinct misrepresentation of what I claim and what I intend. I take extreme exception to that, and to the fact that this Rfc was created in "ADHD controversies" talk page, but clearly aimed at my position in the ADHD talk page. Neither was I notified by Doc James that the Rfc was created. As is evident, I have never contributed to the "ADHD controversies" talk page (before this), so I obviously cannot be expected to have read this without being informed. If this is how the formal process of dispute resolution is supposed to work, we have very serious problems. --
Sportsmand (
talk)
21:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This is getting a little off track. Hoping we can deal with to what degree ADHD is controversial. And than what references are required to verify information added about the controversial aspects of ADHD.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
You are the wone who chased off newcomers like the consultant psychiatrist who wanted to bring his expertise and bring neutrality to the article. You also abused template warnings. I and Doc James have done nothing wrong that I can see.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Considering your first corespondance was a hostile ambush with a 3 revert edit warring template when I did a single revert really shows that you are the one who trys to own articles and chase off anyone with a differing opinion. Really I wish you would just quit moaning and just start citing sources like everyone else. You are completely free to add whatever you want to the article provided it is reliably cited. If you scroll up you will see that when sifaka challenged one of my edits with reliable sources, I agreed to her edits and deletion of one of my citations. It is not about OWN but about you citing sources. I am going to stop communicating with you soon unless you start citing sources and discussing reliable sources. 95% of what you say is drama based or time wasting.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you forgetting that the POV tag states, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2009)". Forget dispute, there has to be discussion for a dispute to occur. And you removed the POV tag without prior discussion because...?!?? Your quick action led me to assume that page ownership was still a huge issue for this article. Editing (reverting) history proves me right once more. When diplomatic approaches have had no traction for a half a year, a more direct approach is justified. There is plenty of documented history to demonstrate page ownership issues for this article. As for drama, who is not focusing on content?-- scuro ( talk) 15:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Currently there is no justification on the talk page for a POV tag (the issue involving Citation #12 seems to have been resolved up above.) I am going to remove the POV tag in 24 hours time from this article unless someone posts specific passages from the article and describes in detail why they violate NPOV linking to the appropriate subsection of the policy page with a suggestion how they might be fixed. For clarity's sake, please use a list. Sifaka talk 17:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is not how consensus works. Time limits are not imposed with demands that must be followed. That is not a conversation, that is authoritarianism. Try first to understand the other persons position. Where can compromise be made? To repeat, there is no consensus on the "suffer" citation, nor on the contention that the article is POV.-- scuro ( talk) 05:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
A warning of Scuro has been posted Edit_warring#Scuro_reported_by_Jmh649_.28Result:_Warned.29 -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you James for not taking down the POV tag. It is a welcome start to discussion.-- scuro ( talk) 13:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I moved this from Literaturegeek's talk page where I originally started the discussion to here since it concerned article content.
Sorry Litgeek, I overwrote your contribs temporarily because I was busy organizing. I'll readd them in in a second. Sifaka talk 00:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok. no problem. I mustn't have paid enough attention to the methodology aspects of the study. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. One of the main controversies surrounding ADHD and stimulants is the very limited research. So robust large studies assessing certain endpoints or meta-anaylsis's etc on the long term effects don't exist. So I would be opposed to deleting the limited research findings that have been found. What I would support however, is keeping the data but clarifying within the wikipedia article the methodology problems such as small sample size. I don't agree with some of the edits that you have done. For example why was the source saying short term clinical trial data can't be relied on to determine long term effects deleted? I agree with some of your other edits. I am going to bed now but will check on the article later.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The high rates of schizophrenics and bipolar patients having a past history of use of amphetamine based stimulants in childhood should not have been deleted. All that is important is that the refs are not taken out of context. This is what the ref says,
Retrospective data from patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders document high rates of childhood stimulant use—generally higher even than other groups with attentional dysfunction (26) and histories of stimulant-associated adverse behavioral effects (27). In these patients, a history of stimulant use is also associated with an earlier age at onset (28) and a more severe course of illness during hospitalization (29). Stimulant exposure in vulnerable individuals may hasten the onset or worsen the course of bipolar or schizophrenic illnesses (26, 30).
This is how I summarised it in wiki,
High rates of childhood stimulant use is found in patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder independent of ADHD. Individuals with a diagnosis of bipolar or schizophrenia who were prescribed stimulants during childhood typically have a significantly earlier onset of the psychotic disorder and suffer a more severe clinical course of psychotic disorder.
The source, was a peer reviewed secondary source review article which is the highest quality of source under wikipedia reliable sources guidelines. Please don't delete high quality sources without discussion or challenging it with another secondary source.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, You changed my edits which accurately interpreted the review article to make it say something completely different which I don't even think the review article even said. You changed it to say "Potential long term effects of methylphenidate being investigated include drug addiction, withdrawal reactions, psychosis and depression." It was reviewing research which has already been carried out, the ref was not about future research. It was not talking about current ongoing research or future research. What you did was misrepresented the ref, so I reverted it.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
There were so many changes and major deletions of good quality secondary sourced info and at least some of the changes distorted what the ref said. I had to revert it all. I think if you are going to delete secondary sourced data that it should be discussed first especially as it is a controversial article. Some of your changes may have been improvements to the article but I just couldn't decifer them from the major deletions and reordering from viewing the edit history. There were just too many changes so I just reverted. Please discuss first major changes. I hope that we don't fall out over this. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I don't think the comorbid term should be used here because it implies that they had the psychotic disorders at the same time as they were being treated with stimulants as children. I have made some changes to the article though to try and resolve the issues that you have raised here. Check out my edits and let me know what you think.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
As wikipedia states, the root of consensus is consent. This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions. Those within this community who want work with other contributors who have different interests and opinions should make themselves known. Those who understand give and take, and want to move the article forward with voices from all sides, need to be heard. Those who are willing to defend others whose viewpoints may even be the opposite their viewpoints, are needed. Those who respect the processes of wikipedia above content, are wanted. Anyone willing to start fresh?-- scuro ( talk) 04:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
You reverted my revert of your edits which have nothing to do with discussing sources. Please don't post anything more on article talk page unless you are citing sources for consensus. You are more than welcome to try and make the article more neutral by citing reliable sources. You are being disruptive and making the talk page a chat forum debating club.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
How about a break for a few days - and have a fresh look on Monday? Earlypsychosis ( talk) 07:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear before we break for the weekend, LG is complaining that after she zapped 3 of my separate talk page posts right off the talk page, including the original post that started this thread right here, I reverted it back.-- scuro ( talk) 10:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Scuro and any other editor are all perfectly welcome to contribute to this article and any article that they see fit with reliable sources. I am not trying to stop anyone from doing that regardless of editing POV. What I am trying to stop is the talk page turning into a debating chat forum which is what Scuro has done. None of what he has said has been productive in improving the article. No citations have been produced, no content within citations discussed etc. The consensus seems to be don't revert talk page comments. Fair enough I will avoid doing that but if continued chat forum unproductive and disruptive postings keep happening I think a warning template is all that can be done. The warning template exists for a reason.- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
First off all you are taking it a little out of context. Second I hope it is not me that you are referring to as being anti-psychiatry. I am not I am just pro research. Psychiatry has some good research but most of it is not. And bio-psychiatry does NOT get to redefine psychiatry as only bio-psych. By the way I have not and am not planning on removing talk page comments.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
After a lengthy airing out of problems facing this article an administrator concluded, "Wikipedia works on WP:Consensus, and relies heavily on the WP:BRD cycle". If no one disagrees with this process, it will be considered a silent consensus.-- scuro ( talk) 15:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The original ref says majority are normal. The 1981 paper says 20% and thus the 20% was added to the line. Primary research is not appropriate to use alone. Therefore the "suffer the restless child" should stay as it is a secondary source. I added the Barkley ref to show that both "side" agree that the children are usually normal in the physicians office.
I have provided three references to support one simple none contentious point. These three references provide balance to each other. Removing one or the other dose not improve things. Therefore I disagree with the removal.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay let move onto the research.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I still haven't received a detail of what you dispute and your sources as I requested in the WQA. Nja 247 09:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
scuro wrote [15:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)]: "As Horeland stated, it is a "denier" citation and as such is biased." I would like to point out that I have not said that the source is biased, quite the contrary.
(Might also point out that Hordaland is the name of a province in Norway. The word Horeland in Norwegian would mean [the] land of whores. I don't think there's more prostitution here than anywhere else... :-)) - Hordaland ( talk) 09:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most controversial psychiatric disorders despite being a well validated clinical diagnosis. [10] [11] The causes, the etiology, the diagnosis, and the treatment of ADHD have been the subject of active debate at least since the 1970s. [12] [13] [14] [15]
Researchers from McMaster University identified five features of ADHD that contribute to its controversial nature:
Lack of clarity on exactly what qualifies as ADHD and changes in diagnostic criteria have caused confusion and concerns about misdiagnosis. [17] Ethical and legal issues with regard to treatment are also areas of concern, such as the promotion of stimulants to treat ADHD by groups and individuals who receive money from drug companies. [11] Children compromise the majority of ADHD diagnoses,(Citation needed here) but because they are unable to give informed consent due to their age, treatment decisions are ultimately determined by their legal guardians on their behalf.
The best course of ADHD management is also a source of debate. Stimulants are the most commonly prescribed medication for ADHD citation needed and "when used with medical supervision, are usually considered quite safe". [18] However, the use of stimulant medications for the treatment of ADHD has generated controversy because of undesirable side effects, uncertain long term effects, and social and ethical issues regarding their use and dispensation.
Although the diagnosis and its genetic and physiological basis have a high level of support from clinicians, most medical authorities, and the U.S. Court, a number of alternative theories explaining the symptoms of ADHD have been proposed which range between describing ADHD as part of the normal spectrum of behavior to rejecting its existence outright. [19] These views include the Hunter vs. farmer theory, Neurodiversity, and the Social construct theory of ADHD.
Suggestions, improvements, sources to add? What do you guys think? Sifaka talk 20:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the whole McMaster part should be considered. It is from 1999, citing sources from 1982-1998. What they wrote or concluded at the time does not necessarily apply today. The sources mentioned in McMaster as the references to "those who regard it as a myth" are these two[ (4)] [ (5)]. As you may see, probably not the best material for a present-day introduction. I can see several things I would do differently, but the McMaster part is the only thing I consider important for now. -- Sportsmand ( talk) 00:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The McMaster paper looks fine to me. They make a good summary of the controversies and don't see anything flawed or quackery about their analysis of the controversies.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
If scuro you want to describe the majority opinion first then provide sources. The problem remains is you are trying to gain consensus via your views and opinions when wikipedia works via reliable sources which you are not providing.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Sifaka, you note that a citation is needed for the claim that "Children compromise the majority of ADHD diagnoses." Doing just a bit of OR, that almost has to be the case. The article Adult ADHD says "The symptoms (see below) need to have been present since before the age of 7 and interfere with at least 2 spheres of functioning (at home and at school/work, for example) over the last 6 months." New diagnoses of adults "requires retrospectively establishing whether the symptoms were also present in childhood..." - Hordaland ( talk) 09:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't checked on the discussion in a while, but it seems like people seem to prefer this intro over the current one. Some aspects of it have yet to be worked out, but I'm going to go ahead and change it to the version without McMaster since people seem to have some issues with this source (I'm not sure all the issues are still current) and let the rest of you editors keep working out the kinks. (Later edit) Actually I'm going to use the McMaster version because that introduces the least change. I'll leave McMaster up to you guys/gals.
Sifaka
talk
19:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
There are now three contributors who see no value in having the "suffer" citation as a support for research done in the past. Specifically the Dr.'s office observation. We would seem to be forming a consensus here.-- scuro ( talk) 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be kept.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that it should be deleted. It isn't inaccurate and is backed up by 2 other refs. If you feel the refs have been taken out of context we could discuss that if you like.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I have ordered the book that the suffer citation is based on. Will switch it to that when the book arrives.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Found an on line version of the book and removed the suffer article.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Good source should be kept. Not sure what it is referencing. Waiting for book to arrive.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The whole issue with this article is that it is a controversy article yet it doesn't follow the policies stated for a controversial article. Here are some basic questions that need to be answered:
As wiki states( WP:UNDUE )"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
What I'm afraid has happened is that the intro has evolved into a coatrack( WP:COATRACK ) with cherry picking of sources ( WP:CHERRY ) Wiki states, "Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias....Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader".
So Sportsmand, it's not just that the McMaster citation is quoted verbatim, at length in the intro....it's that we have no idea what the overreaching controversy is, if there is one, and who holds minority and majority viewpoint. What should really be done is that the article should be tagged POV until the many problems within the article are sorted out. It will take YEARS and YEARS if we use the "suffer" citation as indication of the potential speed of forward progress and consensus building. A tag is really warranted.-- scuro ( talk) 04:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see citations showing that the controversy is undue weight. Without citations it comes down to the POV of scuro says that it is unbalanced when wikipedia works via citations. No one is opposing you using reliable sources to add balance. If those citations exist then please do feel free to cite them to improve and develop the article. I would be opposed to the article being flagged based on an editors opinion without citations.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
A thought, hopefully helpful, resulting from scuro's 3 points at the top of this section. The article is entitled ADHD controversies, plural. Might it help to analyze just how many, and name what they are, before looking for majority/minority (maybe minorities) opinions in the various fora? - Hordaland ( talk) 11:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Your 11:55 entry looks very useful. (I missed it originally, as it wasn't placed at the bottom of the section. Wish people wouldn't do that.)
Particularly this: "Next I'll do perhaps, is to simply re-validate all we have. Make list, crossreference and see what we've got." sounds greatly helpful. But it's a major project. On a subpage of your user page, or??
I think I'll do a new section based on your bullet points. (But I'd better get to the post office first.) - Hordaland ( talk) 13:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I said I'd start a new section to sort out what controversies exist/need be covered. Sifaka already started such a section : ADHD Issues where there is active debate. Let's use - and add to - that.
I've added some comments and have tried to place Sportsmand's recent points there, too. - Hordaland ( talk) 09:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've just been reading WP:Lead. An article's very first paragraph must define the topic and establish significance/notability and context of the subject/topic. It should, with few exceptions, include the article's title, in bold. The present first paragraph is:
I'd like to include the title of the article, bolded, in the first line, as is usual. My attempts sound stilted, so perhaps this is one of the exceptions.
I do not agree with scuro when s/he says "The first sentence of every controversy page should state majority opinion." The 1st sentence of any article should define & establish its subject, which, in this case is not opinion. The page's title is not Opinions about ADHD nor Opinions about ADHD controversies.
Rather, I agree with LK who commented above "The first sentence of the article should describe what the controversy about ADHD is. Statements about how controversial it is can follow, but only after what about ADHD is controversial has been described."
Does the 1st paragraph satisfy the criteria?
One could expect the 1st sentence to echo the 1st sentence of the controversies section of ADHD, so the only improvement I'd suggest is, perhaps:
I do agree with scuro that the sentence "The diagnosis and its genetic and physiological basis have a high level of support from clinicians, most medical authorities, and U.S. federal courts" needs be in the lead somewhere, which it is. It's also alluded to in the first paragraph: "despite being a well-validated clinical diagnosis."
My conclusion: the first paragraph needs few if any changes. - Hordaland ( talk) 23:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks like about 22% of the population of the US which has heard of ADHD does not believe it exists. Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#Skepticism_about_the_diagnosis Not sure what the numbers would be in other places. 36% of American had not heard of the diagnosis in 2002 and I am sure the numbers are much higher in other areas of the world. I personally would not calls these numbers FRINGE. If someone could find a paper on physicians that would be good to put things further into context.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
If you are referring to the Ritalin class action lawsuits they only ruled on whether the drug companies conspired to create ADHD. They did not rule on controversies within medical community or general public, only on whether there was enough evidence to demonstrate that ADHD was created by the drug companies to make money. They ruled that there was not enough evidence to suggest that and dismissed the case. It is not relevant to this article.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps LK, but not in the context that it was used in. It was used in the article to say the US courts agreed that ADHD was a valid disorder. They never ruled on that. They only ruled if the case was proven that the drug companies "made the disorder up to make money". They ruled in favour of the drug companies.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is some stuff that was removed.
Studies on rats have suggested there could be plastic changes in personality and brain functioning after chronic use into adulthood, including changes in sensitivity to reward [16] [17]. But, again, studies in humans are lacking and so such results cannot be automatically extrapolated to humans.
These are animal studies so maybe not appropriate.
-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Section moved north of the references by Sifaka talk 19:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors
If you want to use a direct quote from three people, it has to be attributed. Otherwise change the wording. To strip attribution for no good reason is disruptive editing.-- scuro ( talk) 02:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
-- 24.151.119.232 ( talk) 10:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC) (Simon Sobo, MD) Looks like nothing has changed with Scuro, only the people (like me) who finally give up after fruitless discussions, and his getting his way out of sheer persistence.
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I assume (hope) DJ won't mind me copying what he wrote on the main ADHD article talk page here, as I think it contains some useful resources.
"Here are some more links about the controversy. But I am sure they will not do as Scuro has his own beliefs.
First is a textbook on Developmental Psychopathology that describes the controversy well. This is a secondary source. http://books.google.com/books?id=UlQjE-Ka09sC&pg=PA358&dq=ADHD+controversy&ei=WivjSJLXF4TkygS_3I3iBA&sig=ACfU3U1RIgDI45e5ETkBaR8iWd929M1ysA#PPA358,M1
Next is the cyclopedia Britannica. Yes even more famous then wikipedia. It has a section on the controversy. This is a tertiary source. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/279477/attention-deficithyperactivity-disorder/216017/Controversy-mental-disorder-or-state-of-mind
Medscape discusses it. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/442882_5
How about the US government. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/adhdsum.htm
Another well know site. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=50774
The controversy is even discussed in the BJP. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/184/5/453
I know all these refers boil down to three political science profs to Scuro but... maybe they would actually provide a more balance picture of the who thing. That's just me though I think some people have already made up their minds. --Doc James (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.168.244 ( talk)
This page is about the controversy of ADHD and therefore the lead should reflect that. It does not need to start by talking about what ADHD is. ie. It does not and should not start with the same line as the ADHD page.
I have provided references from the medical community in the above section for Scuro to look at.
-- Doc James ( talk) 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is something more recent that writing about the ADHD controversy. It is published by the NHS and is endorsed by the UK government and the UK psychiatrists. It was published in Sept, 2008.
It speaks about all areas of the ADHD controversy and would count as an excellent secondary source.
http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG72FullGuideline.pdf
Is it normal for governments and psychiatric associations to endorse draft papers?-- scuro ( talk) 04:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
interesting issue. Were the pilots being treated for ADHD? Was the medication prescribed to someone for ADHD? If not I don't see that this is relevant to this article, although it might go in the article on amphetamines.-- Vannin ( talk) 02:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that these pilots respond to ADHD medications even though they do not have ADHD. And that these meds are used for this non specific response. The none specific nature of ADHD drugs causes some of the controversy arround the condition.
It is similar to the controversy arround steroids. We now have steroid wrestling and none steroid wrestling. Should we have the same for school. Amphetamine school and none amphetamine school. In a competitive world are steroid fair when used in the sports? Are amphetamines fair when used in school when some kids take them to gain an accedemic adventage when other kids are not? Both steroids and amphetamines are restricted drugs.
Both these are philosophical issues. Some feel steroids should be allowed others feel they shouldn't. The same applies to ADHD. There is a great documentary called bigger, stronger, faster that touches on the steroid issues and mentions ADHD aswell.
Here is an interesting issue http://www.slate.com/id/2118315/ -- Doc James ( talk) 18:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This is actual a bit different than antidepressants. Antidepressants do not make everyone who takes them happy. And on a side note they do not work for those who are mild, moderately, or severely depressed either. See depression page.
Stimulants are more like steroids. The are non specific in there action. I do agree that the wording was poor. Will work on phrasing the argument more clearly. Doc James ( talk) 19:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd disagree with you here as would the literature. Stimulants significantly reduce ADHD symptoms which have nothing to do with normal behaviour. The action is specific. While you may state that everyone focuses better on stimulants, that doesn't really touch on behaviour, after all ADHD is a behavioural disorder and we see that in school settings where hyperactive adhd kids have few if any friends, and these kids are constantly scored as being disruptive and not able to contain their own behaviour both physically and verbally. Medication allows these kids to function normally and again this has been documented. They don't turn into zombies, as we often hear from scientology, they act normal. Zombies can't make friends nor do they typically do well in school. So the drug works specifically on the symptoms and the action of the drug has been shown to work at the neuron level to allow reuptake to occur in a more natural manner.-- scuro ( talk) 04:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Given the current on-going RFC, this is not the time to make over 30 changes in one day. And it is not the time to go back to an old version of the article-- Vannin ( talk) 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/9/2/9/pages209292/p209292-9.php Doc James ( talk) 22:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030318
Will add info from it. -- Doc James ( talk) 03:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)----
Posted previously that no one would recommend stimulants for general use. I am however wrong and a number of scientist are doing just this and got it published in nature. [2]-- Doc James ( talk) 14:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be a copy of the ADHD controversy page however it is better in many ways.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Controversy-about-ADHD
-- Doc James ( talk) 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I have found were I came from. It is as old copy of this page. One that was present before Scuro started editting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies&oldid=92941637
-- Doc James ( talk) 18:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, talk about gutting an article. Unomi ( talk) 16:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
-- 24.151.119.232 ( talk) 06:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Dr James I've returned for a look after several months absence. I too am a psychiatrist and was eventually driven off by Scuro who I see remains here guarding these pages. I am very suspicious of his motives. That will make him ballistic but I am nearly convinced he is not a devoted independent editor My suspicion is that he will also win with you. After a while you realize you are wasting good time trying to take him on
This present talk page includes comments from the end of September 2008 to today, which is OK.
I've likely missed something, but it looks to me that Archive 1:February 2008 includes comments from about May 2006 to November 2008. It contains 562 kilobytes. Isn't that too huge? Some of it was moved there 28 March 2009 by Jmh649.
Seems to me that someone who knows how to do it, should divide up the present Archive and label the sections correctly. - Hordaland ( talk) 16:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following lines because they state nothing that hasn't already been said above or in other sections.
Sifaka
talk
05:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
"There is concern about the effects of an ADHD diagnosis on the mental state and self-esteem of patients.
[3]
[4] There is disagreement over the cause of ADHD and there are questions about research methodologies
[5], and skepticism toward its classification as a
mental disorder.
[3]"
Hi, I think that debunking or disputing secondary sources eg a review article with a primary source is not in keeping with reliable sources guidelines, Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Do you have a review article or meta-analysis which talks about Adult ADHD? I don't think that the ref should have been deleted based on primary sources disputing it considering it actually reviewed primary sources.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstood me, I was not saying don't challenge references, I was just saying I would like secondary sources (preferably more recent ones) and you have given me review articles which are more current and uptodate. I am happy with your revert of my edits. I think that this content dispute is now resolved. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It is fine, I understand why you said about RfC. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
As predicted the article has become a coatrack again. I've added the POV tag.-- scuro ( talk) 00:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I reverted for failure to outline problems with references or articles on talk page. You can't just say the article is biased and flag it. Do remember the article is on controversies so don't expect the article to be singing praises of ADHD and medications. Also when disputing articles, please cite sources for your dispute. Wikipedia works via reliable sources rather than readers opinions. Or else criticise current sources used. At present it appears you merely flagged the article based on POV.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Citation #12 (suffer the restless children) James, do you honestly believe, one is not required to verify your sources? If this were true anyone could post any source to support any birdbrained idea. In this instance, citation 12 supports this sentence, "most children who end up with a diagnosis of ADHD have normal behavior in the physician's office". Rick Maynes is an associate professor of political science. He is not qualified to have a scientific opinion. We could restate the sentence to, Rick Maynes, who is an associate professor of political science has the unqualifed opinion that... But what would be the point? Barkley merely points out that ADHD kids act worse at home. That doesn't mean that statistically they act normal in the Dr.'s office. Wasn't it Barkley who stated that the ADHD diagnosis is an easy diagnosis to make since the behaviour is so overt and hard to miss?
But all of this is besides the point. As Hordaland stated, the "biased" title like "suffer the restless children" does show the intention of the author, and that is to impart bias. I couldn't have made a better case of the citation's exclusion.-- scuro ( talk) 04:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Added to more references to back up the point.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
AS I HAVE STATED ABOVE I HAVE ADDED TWO MORE REFS. Will will keep the original as it is a secondary rather than a primary source ( one should not use only a primary source ) and the third is an educational site by Barkly's which is not very scholarly. -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You have not provided justification for the POV tag or why the reference should be removed.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not think it should be removed thus we do not have a silent consensus to remove it. -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we need an RfC to try to settle the question is ADHD controversial or not? :-) -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I would just revert unless good reasons for disputing neutrality are given on talk pages. Although you have been around these ADHD articles longer than I so maybe RfC is best next move.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree flagging for flimsy reasons can be disruptive editing. If things reach level of edit warring or talk page filling up with pointless arguments or similar then RfC I reckon.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest that certain editors become familiar with WP:OWNERSHIP and edit warring( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring) POV tags are not be removed at the whim of other editors.-- scuro ( talk) 03:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
A single revert or 2 reverts is not edit warring. You are abusing templates by sending them to my talk page accusing me of being engaged in an edit war after 1 revert. You are veing very aggressive, combative and unreasonable. Furthermore you are an experienced and established editor so I have no doubt that this is intentional on your part. You abuse templates and falsely accuse people of ownership. Having said this, I am not annoyed because all of this will be able to be brought up in RfC. I have no intention of reverting you if you revert me again, so don't even think of abusing templates again on my talk page. Infact don't ever post anything on my talk page again. I don't want to deal with you on my personal space as you are very antagonistic.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The tag clearly says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."
1) Where is the discussion on the talk page regarding the dispute?
2) What part of article is disputed?
3) It says don't remove tag until dispute (on talk page) is resolved. There is no dispute because you haven't stated what is disputed!
So the tag was removed. I think request for comments is warranted with a view of whether administrative action is required.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
(out)Scuro -- specifically, the doctor's office is a new and novel place for the child, which provides stimulations (visual, audible, tactile, interactive, ...) to an ADHD child which helps them with their self-control (it provides the same stimulations to the non-ADHD children, too, but they don't have the self-control problems which can be moderated by external stimuli.) There are many possible reasons for a child's behaviors. htom ( talk) 05:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
If you do not agree than find a reference that says something different.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'ver already demonstrated that the link is not appropriate. See above. What should happen is that it should be removed along with the sentence it supports. If you wish to look for another reference that supports the cited notion, the ball would be in your court.-- scuro ( talk) 15:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
All citations have a POV. If you think their POV has been challenged, then find a source to challenge it and cite it. Your POV of the POV in a citation is meaningless on wikipedia. You need to challenge it with a reliable source. You can't cite or de-cite yourself.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You folks have it backwards. Citations are either reliable or unreliable. In this instance I have made a strong case that is unreliable. I don't have to find another source to "counter" the original citation. It doesn't meet the standard. In wikipedia a citation's reliability has nothing to do with my personal feelings about the source. You might want to do some further reading. WP:RS-- scuro ( talk) 03:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Doc.
The source meets reliable sources guidelines Scuro. Guidelines don't say title of citation "has to be neutral". Your case is weak, not strong. If you have a superior reliable source then cite that and we can discuss things further. One VERY important point scuro. You do realise that if you win this dispute, that ALL of the antipsychiatry and scientology references will have to be deleted because they are WEAKER sources than the source that you are disputing. So you will make the article even more biased against your POV. I do know that newspapers generally not be used in medicine related articles for example. Sometimes they are appropriate and add to an article but if hotly disputed generally they should be deleted. The websites cited also are even worse and weaker than the newspaper articles. Hence those sections will have to be deleted then if ref 12 is deleted based on it not being a reliable enough source. I know that you are very much in favour of promoting the view that opposition to ADHD and amphetamine drugs in children is mostly a scientology conspiracy. Are you still happy to continue the dispute realising this?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
So you can read my mind. Frankly I don't care about the article anymore. What I care about is process that is not being followed because of page ownership issues. No attempt at consensus is being sought. The citation supports an observable fact. I've made my points why this citation is not a good scientific citation. You should be addressing these points instead of telling me I need a "counter" citation, or that if you don't give in we will change all the article. Consensus begins with agreeing with the obvious, not giving no quarter. Consensus begins with some stating, I agree with that point you made.-- scuro ( talk) 12:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/jmh649 Regards,-- scuro ( talk) 02:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I see now, that Doc James has created this Rfc in the ADHD controversies talk page with the following content:
This is a distinct misrepresentation of what I claim and what I intend. I take extreme exception to that, and to the fact that this Rfc was created in "ADHD controversies" talk page, but clearly aimed at my position in the ADHD talk page. Neither was I notified by Doc James that the Rfc was created. As is evident, I have never contributed to the "ADHD controversies" talk page (before this), so I obviously cannot be expected to have read this without being informed. If this is how the formal process of dispute resolution is supposed to work, we have very serious problems. --
Sportsmand (
talk)
21:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This is getting a little off track. Hoping we can deal with to what degree ADHD is controversial. And than what references are required to verify information added about the controversial aspects of ADHD.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
You are the wone who chased off newcomers like the consultant psychiatrist who wanted to bring his expertise and bring neutrality to the article. You also abused template warnings. I and Doc James have done nothing wrong that I can see.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Considering your first corespondance was a hostile ambush with a 3 revert edit warring template when I did a single revert really shows that you are the one who trys to own articles and chase off anyone with a differing opinion. Really I wish you would just quit moaning and just start citing sources like everyone else. You are completely free to add whatever you want to the article provided it is reliably cited. If you scroll up you will see that when sifaka challenged one of my edits with reliable sources, I agreed to her edits and deletion of one of my citations. It is not about OWN but about you citing sources. I am going to stop communicating with you soon unless you start citing sources and discussing reliable sources. 95% of what you say is drama based or time wasting.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you forgetting that the POV tag states, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2009)". Forget dispute, there has to be discussion for a dispute to occur. And you removed the POV tag without prior discussion because...?!?? Your quick action led me to assume that page ownership was still a huge issue for this article. Editing (reverting) history proves me right once more. When diplomatic approaches have had no traction for a half a year, a more direct approach is justified. There is plenty of documented history to demonstrate page ownership issues for this article. As for drama, who is not focusing on content?-- scuro ( talk) 15:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Currently there is no justification on the talk page for a POV tag (the issue involving Citation #12 seems to have been resolved up above.) I am going to remove the POV tag in 24 hours time from this article unless someone posts specific passages from the article and describes in detail why they violate NPOV linking to the appropriate subsection of the policy page with a suggestion how they might be fixed. For clarity's sake, please use a list. Sifaka talk 17:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is not how consensus works. Time limits are not imposed with demands that must be followed. That is not a conversation, that is authoritarianism. Try first to understand the other persons position. Where can compromise be made? To repeat, there is no consensus on the "suffer" citation, nor on the contention that the article is POV.-- scuro ( talk) 05:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
A warning of Scuro has been posted Edit_warring#Scuro_reported_by_Jmh649_.28Result:_Warned.29 -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you James for not taking down the POV tag. It is a welcome start to discussion.-- scuro ( talk) 13:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I moved this from Literaturegeek's talk page where I originally started the discussion to here since it concerned article content.
Sorry Litgeek, I overwrote your contribs temporarily because I was busy organizing. I'll readd them in in a second. Sifaka talk 00:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok. no problem. I mustn't have paid enough attention to the methodology aspects of the study. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. One of the main controversies surrounding ADHD and stimulants is the very limited research. So robust large studies assessing certain endpoints or meta-anaylsis's etc on the long term effects don't exist. So I would be opposed to deleting the limited research findings that have been found. What I would support however, is keeping the data but clarifying within the wikipedia article the methodology problems such as small sample size. I don't agree with some of the edits that you have done. For example why was the source saying short term clinical trial data can't be relied on to determine long term effects deleted? I agree with some of your other edits. I am going to bed now but will check on the article later.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The high rates of schizophrenics and bipolar patients having a past history of use of amphetamine based stimulants in childhood should not have been deleted. All that is important is that the refs are not taken out of context. This is what the ref says,
Retrospective data from patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders document high rates of childhood stimulant use—generally higher even than other groups with attentional dysfunction (26) and histories of stimulant-associated adverse behavioral effects (27). In these patients, a history of stimulant use is also associated with an earlier age at onset (28) and a more severe course of illness during hospitalization (29). Stimulant exposure in vulnerable individuals may hasten the onset or worsen the course of bipolar or schizophrenic illnesses (26, 30).
This is how I summarised it in wiki,
High rates of childhood stimulant use is found in patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder independent of ADHD. Individuals with a diagnosis of bipolar or schizophrenia who were prescribed stimulants during childhood typically have a significantly earlier onset of the psychotic disorder and suffer a more severe clinical course of psychotic disorder.
The source, was a peer reviewed secondary source review article which is the highest quality of source under wikipedia reliable sources guidelines. Please don't delete high quality sources without discussion or challenging it with another secondary source.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, You changed my edits which accurately interpreted the review article to make it say something completely different which I don't even think the review article even said. You changed it to say "Potential long term effects of methylphenidate being investigated include drug addiction, withdrawal reactions, psychosis and depression." It was reviewing research which has already been carried out, the ref was not about future research. It was not talking about current ongoing research or future research. What you did was misrepresented the ref, so I reverted it.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
There were so many changes and major deletions of good quality secondary sourced info and at least some of the changes distorted what the ref said. I had to revert it all. I think if you are going to delete secondary sourced data that it should be discussed first especially as it is a controversial article. Some of your changes may have been improvements to the article but I just couldn't decifer them from the major deletions and reordering from viewing the edit history. There were just too many changes so I just reverted. Please discuss first major changes. I hope that we don't fall out over this. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I don't think the comorbid term should be used here because it implies that they had the psychotic disorders at the same time as they were being treated with stimulants as children. I have made some changes to the article though to try and resolve the issues that you have raised here. Check out my edits and let me know what you think.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
As wikipedia states, the root of consensus is consent. This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions. Those within this community who want work with other contributors who have different interests and opinions should make themselves known. Those who understand give and take, and want to move the article forward with voices from all sides, need to be heard. Those who are willing to defend others whose viewpoints may even be the opposite their viewpoints, are needed. Those who respect the processes of wikipedia above content, are wanted. Anyone willing to start fresh?-- scuro ( talk) 04:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
You reverted my revert of your edits which have nothing to do with discussing sources. Please don't post anything more on article talk page unless you are citing sources for consensus. You are more than welcome to try and make the article more neutral by citing reliable sources. You are being disruptive and making the talk page a chat forum debating club.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
How about a break for a few days - and have a fresh look on Monday? Earlypsychosis ( talk) 07:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear before we break for the weekend, LG is complaining that after she zapped 3 of my separate talk page posts right off the talk page, including the original post that started this thread right here, I reverted it back.-- scuro ( talk) 10:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Scuro and any other editor are all perfectly welcome to contribute to this article and any article that they see fit with reliable sources. I am not trying to stop anyone from doing that regardless of editing POV. What I am trying to stop is the talk page turning into a debating chat forum which is what Scuro has done. None of what he has said has been productive in improving the article. No citations have been produced, no content within citations discussed etc. The consensus seems to be don't revert talk page comments. Fair enough I will avoid doing that but if continued chat forum unproductive and disruptive postings keep happening I think a warning template is all that can be done. The warning template exists for a reason.- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
First off all you are taking it a little out of context. Second I hope it is not me that you are referring to as being anti-psychiatry. I am not I am just pro research. Psychiatry has some good research but most of it is not. And bio-psychiatry does NOT get to redefine psychiatry as only bio-psych. By the way I have not and am not planning on removing talk page comments.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
After a lengthy airing out of problems facing this article an administrator concluded, "Wikipedia works on WP:Consensus, and relies heavily on the WP:BRD cycle". If no one disagrees with this process, it will be considered a silent consensus.-- scuro ( talk) 15:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The original ref says majority are normal. The 1981 paper says 20% and thus the 20% was added to the line. Primary research is not appropriate to use alone. Therefore the "suffer the restless child" should stay as it is a secondary source. I added the Barkley ref to show that both "side" agree that the children are usually normal in the physicians office.
I have provided three references to support one simple none contentious point. These three references provide balance to each other. Removing one or the other dose not improve things. Therefore I disagree with the removal.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay let move onto the research.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I still haven't received a detail of what you dispute and your sources as I requested in the WQA. Nja 247 09:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
scuro wrote [15:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)]: "As Horeland stated, it is a "denier" citation and as such is biased." I would like to point out that I have not said that the source is biased, quite the contrary.
(Might also point out that Hordaland is the name of a province in Norway. The word Horeland in Norwegian would mean [the] land of whores. I don't think there's more prostitution here than anywhere else... :-)) - Hordaland ( talk) 09:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most controversial psychiatric disorders despite being a well validated clinical diagnosis. [10] [11] The causes, the etiology, the diagnosis, and the treatment of ADHD have been the subject of active debate at least since the 1970s. [12] [13] [14] [15]
Researchers from McMaster University identified five features of ADHD that contribute to its controversial nature:
Lack of clarity on exactly what qualifies as ADHD and changes in diagnostic criteria have caused confusion and concerns about misdiagnosis. [17] Ethical and legal issues with regard to treatment are also areas of concern, such as the promotion of stimulants to treat ADHD by groups and individuals who receive money from drug companies. [11] Children compromise the majority of ADHD diagnoses,(Citation needed here) but because they are unable to give informed consent due to their age, treatment decisions are ultimately determined by their legal guardians on their behalf.
The best course of ADHD management is also a source of debate. Stimulants are the most commonly prescribed medication for ADHD citation needed and "when used with medical supervision, are usually considered quite safe". [18] However, the use of stimulant medications for the treatment of ADHD has generated controversy because of undesirable side effects, uncertain long term effects, and social and ethical issues regarding their use and dispensation.
Although the diagnosis and its genetic and physiological basis have a high level of support from clinicians, most medical authorities, and the U.S. Court, a number of alternative theories explaining the symptoms of ADHD have been proposed which range between describing ADHD as part of the normal spectrum of behavior to rejecting its existence outright. [19] These views include the Hunter vs. farmer theory, Neurodiversity, and the Social construct theory of ADHD.
Suggestions, improvements, sources to add? What do you guys think? Sifaka talk 20:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the whole McMaster part should be considered. It is from 1999, citing sources from 1982-1998. What they wrote or concluded at the time does not necessarily apply today. The sources mentioned in McMaster as the references to "those who regard it as a myth" are these two[ (4)] [ (5)]. As you may see, probably not the best material for a present-day introduction. I can see several things I would do differently, but the McMaster part is the only thing I consider important for now. -- Sportsmand ( talk) 00:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The McMaster paper looks fine to me. They make a good summary of the controversies and don't see anything flawed or quackery about their analysis of the controversies.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
If scuro you want to describe the majority opinion first then provide sources. The problem remains is you are trying to gain consensus via your views and opinions when wikipedia works via reliable sources which you are not providing.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Sifaka, you note that a citation is needed for the claim that "Children compromise the majority of ADHD diagnoses." Doing just a bit of OR, that almost has to be the case. The article Adult ADHD says "The symptoms (see below) need to have been present since before the age of 7 and interfere with at least 2 spheres of functioning (at home and at school/work, for example) over the last 6 months." New diagnoses of adults "requires retrospectively establishing whether the symptoms were also present in childhood..." - Hordaland ( talk) 09:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't checked on the discussion in a while, but it seems like people seem to prefer this intro over the current one. Some aspects of it have yet to be worked out, but I'm going to go ahead and change it to the version without McMaster since people seem to have some issues with this source (I'm not sure all the issues are still current) and let the rest of you editors keep working out the kinks. (Later edit) Actually I'm going to use the McMaster version because that introduces the least change. I'll leave McMaster up to you guys/gals.
Sifaka
talk
19:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
There are now three contributors who see no value in having the "suffer" citation as a support for research done in the past. Specifically the Dr.'s office observation. We would seem to be forming a consensus here.-- scuro ( talk) 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be kept.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that it should be deleted. It isn't inaccurate and is backed up by 2 other refs. If you feel the refs have been taken out of context we could discuss that if you like.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I have ordered the book that the suffer citation is based on. Will switch it to that when the book arrives.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Found an on line version of the book and removed the suffer article.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Good source should be kept. Not sure what it is referencing. Waiting for book to arrive.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The whole issue with this article is that it is a controversy article yet it doesn't follow the policies stated for a controversial article. Here are some basic questions that need to be answered:
As wiki states( WP:UNDUE )"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
What I'm afraid has happened is that the intro has evolved into a coatrack( WP:COATRACK ) with cherry picking of sources ( WP:CHERRY ) Wiki states, "Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias....Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader".
So Sportsmand, it's not just that the McMaster citation is quoted verbatim, at length in the intro....it's that we have no idea what the overreaching controversy is, if there is one, and who holds minority and majority viewpoint. What should really be done is that the article should be tagged POV until the many problems within the article are sorted out. It will take YEARS and YEARS if we use the "suffer" citation as indication of the potential speed of forward progress and consensus building. A tag is really warranted.-- scuro ( talk) 04:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see citations showing that the controversy is undue weight. Without citations it comes down to the POV of scuro says that it is unbalanced when wikipedia works via citations. No one is opposing you using reliable sources to add balance. If those citations exist then please do feel free to cite them to improve and develop the article. I would be opposed to the article being flagged based on an editors opinion without citations.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
A thought, hopefully helpful, resulting from scuro's 3 points at the top of this section. The article is entitled ADHD controversies, plural. Might it help to analyze just how many, and name what they are, before looking for majority/minority (maybe minorities) opinions in the various fora? - Hordaland ( talk) 11:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Your 11:55 entry looks very useful. (I missed it originally, as it wasn't placed at the bottom of the section. Wish people wouldn't do that.)
Particularly this: "Next I'll do perhaps, is to simply re-validate all we have. Make list, crossreference and see what we've got." sounds greatly helpful. But it's a major project. On a subpage of your user page, or??
I think I'll do a new section based on your bullet points. (But I'd better get to the post office first.) - Hordaland ( talk) 13:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I said I'd start a new section to sort out what controversies exist/need be covered. Sifaka already started such a section : ADHD Issues where there is active debate. Let's use - and add to - that.
I've added some comments and have tried to place Sportsmand's recent points there, too. - Hordaland ( talk) 09:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've just been reading WP:Lead. An article's very first paragraph must define the topic and establish significance/notability and context of the subject/topic. It should, with few exceptions, include the article's title, in bold. The present first paragraph is:
I'd like to include the title of the article, bolded, in the first line, as is usual. My attempts sound stilted, so perhaps this is one of the exceptions.
I do not agree with scuro when s/he says "The first sentence of every controversy page should state majority opinion." The 1st sentence of any article should define & establish its subject, which, in this case is not opinion. The page's title is not Opinions about ADHD nor Opinions about ADHD controversies.
Rather, I agree with LK who commented above "The first sentence of the article should describe what the controversy about ADHD is. Statements about how controversial it is can follow, but only after what about ADHD is controversial has been described."
Does the 1st paragraph satisfy the criteria?
One could expect the 1st sentence to echo the 1st sentence of the controversies section of ADHD, so the only improvement I'd suggest is, perhaps:
I do agree with scuro that the sentence "The diagnosis and its genetic and physiological basis have a high level of support from clinicians, most medical authorities, and U.S. federal courts" needs be in the lead somewhere, which it is. It's also alluded to in the first paragraph: "despite being a well-validated clinical diagnosis."
My conclusion: the first paragraph needs few if any changes. - Hordaland ( talk) 23:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks like about 22% of the population of the US which has heard of ADHD does not believe it exists. Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#Skepticism_about_the_diagnosis Not sure what the numbers would be in other places. 36% of American had not heard of the diagnosis in 2002 and I am sure the numbers are much higher in other areas of the world. I personally would not calls these numbers FRINGE. If someone could find a paper on physicians that would be good to put things further into context.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
If you are referring to the Ritalin class action lawsuits they only ruled on whether the drug companies conspired to create ADHD. They did not rule on controversies within medical community or general public, only on whether there was enough evidence to demonstrate that ADHD was created by the drug companies to make money. They ruled that there was not enough evidence to suggest that and dismissed the case. It is not relevant to this article.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps LK, but not in the context that it was used in. It was used in the article to say the US courts agreed that ADHD was a valid disorder. They never ruled on that. They only ruled if the case was proven that the drug companies "made the disorder up to make money". They ruled in favour of the drug companies.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is some stuff that was removed.
Studies on rats have suggested there could be plastic changes in personality and brain functioning after chronic use into adulthood, including changes in sensitivity to reward [16] [17]. But, again, studies in humans are lacking and so such results cannot be automatically extrapolated to humans.
These are animal studies so maybe not appropriate.
-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Section moved north of the references by Sifaka talk 19:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors
If you want to use a direct quote from three people, it has to be attributed. Otherwise change the wording. To strip attribution for no good reason is disruptive editing.-- scuro ( talk) 02:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
-- 24.151.119.232 ( talk) 10:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC) (Simon Sobo, MD) Looks like nothing has changed with Scuro, only the people (like me) who finally give up after fruitless discussions, and his getting his way out of sheer persistence.
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)