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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
i was wondering why this article never mentions the depressive and anxious versions of ADD or as dr Dainel Amen classifies them the eeyore and piglet types—Preceding unsigned comment added by Itshouldbereversed ( talk • contribs) 20:05, May 2, 2009
If you found reliable sources they could be cited and the info on depression and anxiety features of ADHD being added.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
its in DR. Daniel Amens book Healing ADHD:The Breakthrough Program That Allows You to See and Heal the 6 Types of ADD.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Itshouldbereversed ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to cite the book, here is the cite book template. Template:Cite book-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
ADHD is the current medical collaboration of the week. This page has improved significantly since it was nominated but hopefully we can make further improvements.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I nominated this article as I think extra eyes from some very smart people who understand both research and science / medicine will improve and solidify the consensus of the article. POV if any will be removed and consensus will be easier to make. I do not understand why you would want to keep more eyes away from this article?-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Seeing that I have virtually been blocked from editing the page in over a year by more then one editor, you would think POV issues and page ownership issues should be dealt with first. Why bring others into a process that is not working?-- scuro ( talk) 19:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Make no mistake, although the content dispute may be made against a single user, the intention may well be to use a ruling in his favour, more broadly. Also be aware that James had an ownership RFC filed against him in which he requested that content be part of the RFC. That was agreed to but James chose to drop out of the mediation.-- scuro ( talk) 10:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled upon a reference which states that most healthcare professionals accept the validity of ADHD as a genuine disorder but significant controversies exist with regard to how it is diagnosed and its treatments or words to that effect. I have added this to the lead giving it prominant attention for the reader of this article so hopefully this will resolve the issues raised by Sportsmand and others. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to explain how I see this source. It is a valid reference in our debate and I suppose it could serve somewhere in our complex of ADHD information. It actually shows the need to keep the proper proportions as to the prominence of our sources.
First point: Your reference is supposed to support the entire new sentence "Most healthcare providers however accept that ADHD is a genuine disorder but significant controversy surrounds how it is diagnosed and also its treatment." You seem to have "translated" this by substituing your own words for what the source really say:
The source states at the beginning: "There is significant controversy surrounding attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)". I think we know that now. It also states "the existence of this disorder is generally accepted". So, by logic, the controversy is not about the ADHD diagnosis and the whole thing is moot.
In total, if I may ask: Do you see this as a proper representation of what the source actually says?
Second and more important point. This is a 2004 minor source aimed at the australian public and explicitly in the context of substance abuse. It is written by 3 professionals all working in the context of "Drugs and Alcohol". The source itself declares: "This is the fifth article in a series of case files from general practice that explore treatment issues around substance use and commonly encountered general practice presentations".
Now really, is this the kind of source that goes directly to the main section of the ADHD article? With or without original synthesis, we seem to disagree with some basic tenents of NPOV. I hope we can do better. -- Sportsmand ( talk) 21:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
""translated" this by substituing your own words for what the source really say"
This is what editors on wikipedia are meant to do as wikipedia prohibits copying and pasting sentences from sources. If you insist on reverting it then fine. I added it to try and make the article less biased by showing that most doctors accept the diagnosis as a valid disorder which I thought was what you wanted. I don't really see any flaws in how I interpreted the source.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
<-My main point remains unanswered. At this point however, I do not really intend to revert the sentence, as it seems to illustrate a concern more than one editor is trying to raise. At this place and in view of the ongoing "controversy" debate among the editors, a separate "citation" vs "citation" debate seems pointless. Not that I wouldn't clearly appreciate editor Literaturegeeks' comments here, but in addition and too be clear, I suspect that the present mention of controversy, at this place in this kind of article may in its current form represent undue weight. I do not really want to argue this viewpoint here at the moment. The underlying and clarifying debate concerning validity and placement of sources is underway in this section
Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#the_intro_-coatrack.2C_undue_weight_issues. My questions to editor Literaturegeek concerning sources will be proceded in there. --
Sportsmand (
talk) 10:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no article for Attention Deficit Disorder (Without hyperactivity). It is difficult to sort through the ADHD-specific information. 12.239.57.101 ( talk) 20:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Debate about the whole controversies article also has ramifications here. There is a fair bit of mention of controversies in this article and the same questions are relevant:
As wiki states( WP:UNDUE )"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
While this article is of higher quality then the controversies article, I believe there are still coatrack( WP:COATRACK ) issues, with cherry picking of sources ( WP:CHERRY ) Wiki states, "Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias....Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader".
To repeat from what was said on the controversies page, it is not at all clear what the overreaching controversy is, if in fact there is one, and who holds minority and majority viewpoint. What should really be done is that the article should be tagged POV until this sorted out. The action is warranted because of the very slow pace of consensus building.-- scuro ( talk) 11:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Press release: Treating Sleep Disorders May Ease ADHD Symptoms : Team suggests screening spares patients lifetime of problems. - Hordaland ( talk) 22:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This section is rather long and I'm not sure the objections to neuroimaging brought up here are disputed significantly by the mainstream medical community considering the length of this section. I don't have sources to support this since it's an off the cuff observation I've made.
Something else that bothers me more is that the criticism section talks about neuroimaging in general, but in reality the sources for the criticism section only apply to certain types of neuroimaging studies. Specifically those reviews by Leo and Cohen only look at the brain size studies, not the glucose metabolism ones, dopamine and related distribution/reuptake analysis, blood flow, genetic analysis, etc. Therefore they are being used beyond their intended scope because the criticism section wording implies that the results are applicable to all the different types of neuroimaging studies rather than brain size studies only.
There is pretty much one source used in the pathophysiology section which is potentially within the scope of the criticism and that's "Brain Matures a Few Years Late in ADHD, But Follows Normal Pattern," however that source is more recent (2007) than the latest Leo and Cohen review used as a sources (2003 and 2004) and uses different methodology than previous studies Leo and Cohen looked at (new image analysis technique allowed the researchers to pinpoint the thickening and thinning of thousands of cortex sites in hundreds of children and teens, with and without the disorder). That means that none of the criticism of neuroimaging is directly relevant to any of the studies used in the pathophysiology section. I have also noticed that some quotes from the Leo and Cohen papers could be construed as being more general, but that would be taking them out of context.
Currently the criticism section is misleading because it seems to imply that the criticism is applicable to the sources used in the pathophysiology section. This section needs to be put into proper scope: the criticism is about brain size studies only. This section also needs to find some new sources that are directly relevant and preferably cover some of the content or studies/reviews used as sources in the pathophysiology section. If such sources can't be found, I would rather delete the section since it fails to be relevant criticism to any of the content or sources for the content in the pathophysiology section. I tagged the section with an n-NPOV tag mostly because I couldn't find a over-generalizing source scope section-only tag. If there is a more relevant tag, please replace it with the one I put there.
Sifaka
talk 15:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the section is too big and the article itself is actually getting too big. I wonder should a seperate article page be created for the neuroimaging research and then just a short paragraph or two left on this article with a see also or main article link above it? I have reworded a sentence to clarify that the only dispute is with regard to the brain volume size. I think that the criticism section is still relevant though as it is an important fact brain volume size and if studies were flawed then this should be noted in the article. I will try and find newer sources.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Another reason it is relevant is because stimulants slow down the rate of growth as well. Maybe we can shorten the criticism paragraph and add it after the brain volume paragraph? I am sure that we will be able to work out a compromise and sort out neutrality.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Lots of drugs influence brain volume if used chronically some mildly, some severely. Alcohol is probably the worst drug for shrinking the brain but as we know is not prescribed. I have seen papers on prescription sedative hypnotics, anticonvulsants, antipsychotics being linked to brain shrinkage. Whether amphetamine based stimulants cause brain shrinkage they may very well do. There is controversy in the literature over whether ADHD itself or stimulants cause the brain shrinkage.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the separate section and vacuum packed it into two sentences. Perhaps a bit drastic and bold, but I'm happy because it still gets the main point across without overwhelming the rest of the section and it gets rid of the undue weight, irrelevancy, and scope of the source problem while giving some idea of who is debating the issues. Sifaka talk 04:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough but I still think the section is too large especially as the pathophysiology is not conclusive. I think that it still needs shortened or else an article created on the pathophysiology of ADHD or else merge some of it into this article low arousal theory.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The image to the right, present in this article as of today, is suspect. Why does it show glucose being metabolized outside the brain? It appears to me like some guy turned a knob to turn up the contrast and there are all these artifacts, which in turn makes the in-brain pixels suspect. The link to the source on the image page is to a "Page Not Found" page. Tempshill ( talk) 01:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Therefore removed
-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Are there not too many external links? Also, the controversy links, wouldn't they be more appropriate on the controversy article?-- scuro ( talk) 04:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to prune this section. I see no objection.-- scuro ( talk) 11:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have pruned the section. Thanks for pointing that out.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The article is (as of 18:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)) 99KB long (and therefore, should be shortened). I can already see that a lot of side-articles have already branched off of this one. Should we split this into more articles, or move some of the information to the existing articles, and leave just a summary here?-- Unionhawk Talk 18:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that the first section that should be split off into its own page should be the pathophysiology section. It is too large.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Can we all agree that we shouldn't eliminate material solely on the basis that a section is to "long"? There are many options here and what is desperately needed is a consensus approach. Seek consensus in talk to find solutions. Dividing articles into new articles is one solution like the controversy section.
This section [ [1]] has been removed twice because it is too long and is missing a citation. What it needs is a citation tag.-- scuro ( talk) 02:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
Main|Main Article}}
tag. If you want to add more information on sections that already have a {{
main}} tag, add it to the main article mentioned. Guidenines at
WP:SPLIT say that at 100KB and above, you should probably split it. Although there's not a size limit, but as it is, it may take a few minutes to load for dial up customers. Right now, it is too long, and you're pretty much the only one who disagrees.--
Unionhawk
Talk 11:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Hi Union, I think that the history section Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#History and the pathophysiology section Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Pathophysiology should be considered for their own seperate articles with a short summary left on this page. They are far too big for this article I think. If they are shortened then we will end up with an article of around 80 kbs or less. Any opinions?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I am beginning to wonder Scuro if you are only here to disrupt wikipedia or run down other editors that you don't like. You seem to just want to wear people down. The article was over 100 kb in size. Poorly cited or uncited data should not be in the article. I simply moved the history data of adult ADHD to the main adult adhd article as people seemed to think it was notable albeit uncited.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I am in support splitting. I think from above section doc james would also be in favour of splitting the history section.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I am against splitting off the pathophysiology section even though it is long because there isn't quite enough content to make a full article unless it is elaborated on. Also, having a lot of separate articles makes it more difficult to navigate the topic and make sure the various articles are in agreement with one another. I might switch sides if it becomes much longer or someone thinks they can elaborate on the information, but I haven't seen anyone besides litgeek (and maybe me) interested in adding new content lately so I don't think that making it a new article will suddenly free up some editor's previously-suppressed-by-length-of-section desire to add new content. I weakly support splitting off the history section, since that is getting up there in length and there is enough info for a decent full article, but again having lots of sub articles makes it harder to navigate and ensure that the content on one page agrees with the content on another. Sifaka talk 20:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(←)Would you rather I brought it to RFC? I can do that, if you would like.-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The complete NICE guideline is now out. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/ADHDFullGuideline.pdf -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Very NICE, are you going to cite it?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I just removed the term "Learning Disabilities" from this page. I will admit upfront that I have both first hand experience with
"learning disabilities" AND a strong opinion on this. Therefore, I'm biased. First, I was diagnosed as "learning disabled" and attended a school for the learning disabled for all elementary straight up through 7th grade. As someone who's actually "been there", I'll tell you that "Learning Disabled" or "Learning disability" is a bullshit term. It's a convenient label for teachers to lay on kids that actually learn by doing, not just listening and therefore don't fit the normal classroom mold.
Based on my experience (1st hand) the term is bullshit and needs to not be here.
I understand wiki is about consensus, so, I will not pull that phrase out if it gets put back in.
Just an explanation
—
Kosh Naluboutes, Nalubotes
Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 16:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting point of view and I can see your reasoning and opposition to the term but unfortunately we can't change how medicine or psychiatry categorises dare I say "impairments" or "differences". So I have to agree with Onorem.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Behaviour such as indirectly speaking ill of others, not answering questions, and not focusing on content should be avoided. I've seen this behaviour recently on others talk pages, the talk page, and also in edit summaries. Can we please stop?-- scuro ( talk) 15:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Guys
I just added auto archiving to this talkpage, I saw this article mentioned at ANI and thought that I'd might try to have a positive influence on it but then when I started viewing this talkpage it was simply too large for me to really grasp what is going on with the article. I think that auto archiving is something that we can all agree on here but if anyone has any objections then please let me know.-- 194x144x90x118 ( talk) 13:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This theory denies that ADHD exists. It is fringe opinion and belongs on the controversies page.-- scuro ( talk) 04:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
That is cited to a publication by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, a high quality secondary source. Do you have a secondary source to dispute this scuro?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes NICE conclude that but also acknowledge that the disorder has a number of controversies. Insomnia is a valid disorder but its pharmacological treatment and over-diagnosis is controversial. I have been for the past number of days adding more and more data on the controversies of ADHD as you have requested. I will continue to expand on controversies sections with more citations as you requested. Please be patient.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The sources used are mostly good quality secondary sources. Please provide sources for your view point.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Firstly it is not my source and not my edit. The reference says that there is considerable controversy surrounding ADHD and devotes a section discussing the controversies. The source also summarises the controversies as saying that some question whether ADHD exists. It is a National Institute for Clinical Excellence national report. Please quit trying to use your POV to trump a NICE national high quality source. Please provide peer reviewed sources for your position.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
LG...LG...I've taken the trouble to point out specific sections of the guidelines that counters what you state. I've cut and pasted these passages and also provided page numbers. I've also taken the trouble to cut and paste three specific passages on wiki policy and fringe viewpoint. Now granted the guideline does discuss controversy but at no point does it question the existence of ADHD. As a guideline it indicates what the best methods of treatment are. They did research on this so that the guideline would be informed. If they thought ADHD was FAKE why would they do that? Anyways the ball is in Doc James court and he refuses to play ball. These questions have been asked and no one is answering:
If you can't answer then the citation means nothing with regards to SC and SC certainly looks to be a clear cut case of a fringe theory.-- scuro ( talk) 03:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You know, that's actually, if not still now, at the very least in the past the dominant theory. "prominent adherents" include scientologists, and people who don't have ADHD/don't have to live with someone with ADHD. Just look in the talk page/talk archives/past vandalism on this page alone! How many (→Replaced content with "FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE!!!!! ADHD DOESN"T EXIST!!!") s have we gotten? a lot.-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 03:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help) Ignoring those who have views that are different from that of pro pharma / pro ADHD by the way does not make these people not exist. Thankfully wikipedia does not have a memory hole. Unionhawk's comment is well put. People beleive these alternative views which is exactly why we have people coming here a replacing the entire page with the words FAKE. It makes one think that maybe ADHD is just a bit controversial. :-) --
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 03:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
(←)Um... wtf? You aren't asking to have it removed? Isn't what this started as? Removing that viewpoint? I'm so confused now...-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
As per usual scuro please provide a citation saying that it is fringe for your arguements. At present it is reliably cited.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The Social Construct Theory of ADHD believes that ADHD is FAKE. I've pointed out that this is a fringe theory [ [2]] and removed the section. No one made the case why this is not a fringe theory yet the section was reverted back. I put a POV tag on the section. The tag was removed. Diff here -> [ [3]] That tag specifically states not to remove it till the conflict is resolved. The might is right approach is very uncivil and has been alive and well on this page now for over a year.-- scuro ( talk) 03:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Unionhawk. I did not write any of this info on SC just found references for it. We are not here to determine the truth but to reflect what is out there in the published literature. No one else has come forwards with a definitive cause of ADHD. Therefore until someone does many theories will abound.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I have previous to these comments added four references to books and the peer reviewed literature to support these passages. I have also added the name of one of the most well known adherents who has extensively published on the topic.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please provide citations for your viewpoint scuro. At present it is reliably cited with several citations. Your POV does not trump reliable sources. Thank you.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, I believe that the SC theory belongs on Wikipedia, I think that I probably wrote the original article using content from the Controversies article. What I question is if the SC theory belongs on the main ADHD page. Doc James, did you add Thomas Szasz as a proponent of this theory on the main article? Did not TS form the CCHR with Scientology and state this about the CCHR? “We should all honor CCHR because it is really the organization that for the first time in human history has organized a politically, socially, internationally significant voice to combat psychiatry. This has never been done in human history before.” [ [4]] Is he not seen as an anti-psychiatry critic? Wouldn't anti-psychiatry viewpoints be fringe viewpoint with regards to causes of ADHD. They don't believe ADHD exists.-- scuro ( talk) 22:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
(←)Just ignore him... Would it make you happy if I cut the word "um" out of my vocabulary? I mean, seriously...-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
i was wondering why this article never mentions the depressive and anxious versions of ADD or as dr Dainel Amen classifies them the eeyore and piglet types—Preceding unsigned comment added by Itshouldbereversed ( talk • contribs) 20:05, May 2, 2009
If you found reliable sources they could be cited and the info on depression and anxiety features of ADHD being added.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
its in DR. Daniel Amens book Healing ADHD:The Breakthrough Program That Allows You to See and Heal the 6 Types of ADD.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Itshouldbereversed ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to cite the book, here is the cite book template. Template:Cite book-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
ADHD is the current medical collaboration of the week. This page has improved significantly since it was nominated but hopefully we can make further improvements.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I nominated this article as I think extra eyes from some very smart people who understand both research and science / medicine will improve and solidify the consensus of the article. POV if any will be removed and consensus will be easier to make. I do not understand why you would want to keep more eyes away from this article?-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Seeing that I have virtually been blocked from editing the page in over a year by more then one editor, you would think POV issues and page ownership issues should be dealt with first. Why bring others into a process that is not working?-- scuro ( talk) 19:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Make no mistake, although the content dispute may be made against a single user, the intention may well be to use a ruling in his favour, more broadly. Also be aware that James had an ownership RFC filed against him in which he requested that content be part of the RFC. That was agreed to but James chose to drop out of the mediation.-- scuro ( talk) 10:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled upon a reference which states that most healthcare professionals accept the validity of ADHD as a genuine disorder but significant controversies exist with regard to how it is diagnosed and its treatments or words to that effect. I have added this to the lead giving it prominant attention for the reader of this article so hopefully this will resolve the issues raised by Sportsmand and others. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to explain how I see this source. It is a valid reference in our debate and I suppose it could serve somewhere in our complex of ADHD information. It actually shows the need to keep the proper proportions as to the prominence of our sources.
First point: Your reference is supposed to support the entire new sentence "Most healthcare providers however accept that ADHD is a genuine disorder but significant controversy surrounds how it is diagnosed and also its treatment." You seem to have "translated" this by substituing your own words for what the source really say:
The source states at the beginning: "There is significant controversy surrounding attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)". I think we know that now. It also states "the existence of this disorder is generally accepted". So, by logic, the controversy is not about the ADHD diagnosis and the whole thing is moot.
In total, if I may ask: Do you see this as a proper representation of what the source actually says?
Second and more important point. This is a 2004 minor source aimed at the australian public and explicitly in the context of substance abuse. It is written by 3 professionals all working in the context of "Drugs and Alcohol". The source itself declares: "This is the fifth article in a series of case files from general practice that explore treatment issues around substance use and commonly encountered general practice presentations".
Now really, is this the kind of source that goes directly to the main section of the ADHD article? With or without original synthesis, we seem to disagree with some basic tenents of NPOV. I hope we can do better. -- Sportsmand ( talk) 21:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
""translated" this by substituing your own words for what the source really say"
This is what editors on wikipedia are meant to do as wikipedia prohibits copying and pasting sentences from sources. If you insist on reverting it then fine. I added it to try and make the article less biased by showing that most doctors accept the diagnosis as a valid disorder which I thought was what you wanted. I don't really see any flaws in how I interpreted the source.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
<-My main point remains unanswered. At this point however, I do not really intend to revert the sentence, as it seems to illustrate a concern more than one editor is trying to raise. At this place and in view of the ongoing "controversy" debate among the editors, a separate "citation" vs "citation" debate seems pointless. Not that I wouldn't clearly appreciate editor Literaturegeeks' comments here, but in addition and too be clear, I suspect that the present mention of controversy, at this place in this kind of article may in its current form represent undue weight. I do not really want to argue this viewpoint here at the moment. The underlying and clarifying debate concerning validity and placement of sources is underway in this section
Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#the_intro_-coatrack.2C_undue_weight_issues. My questions to editor Literaturegeek concerning sources will be proceded in there. --
Sportsmand (
talk) 10:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no article for Attention Deficit Disorder (Without hyperactivity). It is difficult to sort through the ADHD-specific information. 12.239.57.101 ( talk) 20:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Debate about the whole controversies article also has ramifications here. There is a fair bit of mention of controversies in this article and the same questions are relevant:
As wiki states( WP:UNDUE )"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
While this article is of higher quality then the controversies article, I believe there are still coatrack( WP:COATRACK ) issues, with cherry picking of sources ( WP:CHERRY ) Wiki states, "Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias....Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader".
To repeat from what was said on the controversies page, it is not at all clear what the overreaching controversy is, if in fact there is one, and who holds minority and majority viewpoint. What should really be done is that the article should be tagged POV until this sorted out. The action is warranted because of the very slow pace of consensus building.-- scuro ( talk) 11:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Press release: Treating Sleep Disorders May Ease ADHD Symptoms : Team suggests screening spares patients lifetime of problems. - Hordaland ( talk) 22:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This section is rather long and I'm not sure the objections to neuroimaging brought up here are disputed significantly by the mainstream medical community considering the length of this section. I don't have sources to support this since it's an off the cuff observation I've made.
Something else that bothers me more is that the criticism section talks about neuroimaging in general, but in reality the sources for the criticism section only apply to certain types of neuroimaging studies. Specifically those reviews by Leo and Cohen only look at the brain size studies, not the glucose metabolism ones, dopamine and related distribution/reuptake analysis, blood flow, genetic analysis, etc. Therefore they are being used beyond their intended scope because the criticism section wording implies that the results are applicable to all the different types of neuroimaging studies rather than brain size studies only.
There is pretty much one source used in the pathophysiology section which is potentially within the scope of the criticism and that's "Brain Matures a Few Years Late in ADHD, But Follows Normal Pattern," however that source is more recent (2007) than the latest Leo and Cohen review used as a sources (2003 and 2004) and uses different methodology than previous studies Leo and Cohen looked at (new image analysis technique allowed the researchers to pinpoint the thickening and thinning of thousands of cortex sites in hundreds of children and teens, with and without the disorder). That means that none of the criticism of neuroimaging is directly relevant to any of the studies used in the pathophysiology section. I have also noticed that some quotes from the Leo and Cohen papers could be construed as being more general, but that would be taking them out of context.
Currently the criticism section is misleading because it seems to imply that the criticism is applicable to the sources used in the pathophysiology section. This section needs to be put into proper scope: the criticism is about brain size studies only. This section also needs to find some new sources that are directly relevant and preferably cover some of the content or studies/reviews used as sources in the pathophysiology section. If such sources can't be found, I would rather delete the section since it fails to be relevant criticism to any of the content or sources for the content in the pathophysiology section. I tagged the section with an n-NPOV tag mostly because I couldn't find a over-generalizing source scope section-only tag. If there is a more relevant tag, please replace it with the one I put there.
Sifaka
talk 15:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the section is too big and the article itself is actually getting too big. I wonder should a seperate article page be created for the neuroimaging research and then just a short paragraph or two left on this article with a see also or main article link above it? I have reworded a sentence to clarify that the only dispute is with regard to the brain volume size. I think that the criticism section is still relevant though as it is an important fact brain volume size and if studies were flawed then this should be noted in the article. I will try and find newer sources.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Another reason it is relevant is because stimulants slow down the rate of growth as well. Maybe we can shorten the criticism paragraph and add it after the brain volume paragraph? I am sure that we will be able to work out a compromise and sort out neutrality.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Lots of drugs influence brain volume if used chronically some mildly, some severely. Alcohol is probably the worst drug for shrinking the brain but as we know is not prescribed. I have seen papers on prescription sedative hypnotics, anticonvulsants, antipsychotics being linked to brain shrinkage. Whether amphetamine based stimulants cause brain shrinkage they may very well do. There is controversy in the literature over whether ADHD itself or stimulants cause the brain shrinkage.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the separate section and vacuum packed it into two sentences. Perhaps a bit drastic and bold, but I'm happy because it still gets the main point across without overwhelming the rest of the section and it gets rid of the undue weight, irrelevancy, and scope of the source problem while giving some idea of who is debating the issues. Sifaka talk 04:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough but I still think the section is too large especially as the pathophysiology is not conclusive. I think that it still needs shortened or else an article created on the pathophysiology of ADHD or else merge some of it into this article low arousal theory.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The image to the right, present in this article as of today, is suspect. Why does it show glucose being metabolized outside the brain? It appears to me like some guy turned a knob to turn up the contrast and there are all these artifacts, which in turn makes the in-brain pixels suspect. The link to the source on the image page is to a "Page Not Found" page. Tempshill ( talk) 01:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Therefore removed
-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Are there not too many external links? Also, the controversy links, wouldn't they be more appropriate on the controversy article?-- scuro ( talk) 04:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to prune this section. I see no objection.-- scuro ( talk) 11:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have pruned the section. Thanks for pointing that out.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The article is (as of 18:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)) 99KB long (and therefore, should be shortened). I can already see that a lot of side-articles have already branched off of this one. Should we split this into more articles, or move some of the information to the existing articles, and leave just a summary here?-- Unionhawk Talk 18:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that the first section that should be split off into its own page should be the pathophysiology section. It is too large.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Can we all agree that we shouldn't eliminate material solely on the basis that a section is to "long"? There are many options here and what is desperately needed is a consensus approach. Seek consensus in talk to find solutions. Dividing articles into new articles is one solution like the controversy section.
This section [ [1]] has been removed twice because it is too long and is missing a citation. What it needs is a citation tag.-- scuro ( talk) 02:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
Main|Main Article}}
tag. If you want to add more information on sections that already have a {{
main}} tag, add it to the main article mentioned. Guidenines at
WP:SPLIT say that at 100KB and above, you should probably split it. Although there's not a size limit, but as it is, it may take a few minutes to load for dial up customers. Right now, it is too long, and you're pretty much the only one who disagrees.--
Unionhawk
Talk 11:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Hi Union, I think that the history section Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#History and the pathophysiology section Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Pathophysiology should be considered for their own seperate articles with a short summary left on this page. They are far too big for this article I think. If they are shortened then we will end up with an article of around 80 kbs or less. Any opinions?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I am beginning to wonder Scuro if you are only here to disrupt wikipedia or run down other editors that you don't like. You seem to just want to wear people down. The article was over 100 kb in size. Poorly cited or uncited data should not be in the article. I simply moved the history data of adult ADHD to the main adult adhd article as people seemed to think it was notable albeit uncited.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I am in support splitting. I think from above section doc james would also be in favour of splitting the history section.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I am against splitting off the pathophysiology section even though it is long because there isn't quite enough content to make a full article unless it is elaborated on. Also, having a lot of separate articles makes it more difficult to navigate the topic and make sure the various articles are in agreement with one another. I might switch sides if it becomes much longer or someone thinks they can elaborate on the information, but I haven't seen anyone besides litgeek (and maybe me) interested in adding new content lately so I don't think that making it a new article will suddenly free up some editor's previously-suppressed-by-length-of-section desire to add new content. I weakly support splitting off the history section, since that is getting up there in length and there is enough info for a decent full article, but again having lots of sub articles makes it harder to navigate and ensure that the content on one page agrees with the content on another. Sifaka talk 20:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(←)Would you rather I brought it to RFC? I can do that, if you would like.-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The complete NICE guideline is now out. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/ADHDFullGuideline.pdf -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Very NICE, are you going to cite it?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I just removed the term "Learning Disabilities" from this page. I will admit upfront that I have both first hand experience with
"learning disabilities" AND a strong opinion on this. Therefore, I'm biased. First, I was diagnosed as "learning disabled" and attended a school for the learning disabled for all elementary straight up through 7th grade. As someone who's actually "been there", I'll tell you that "Learning Disabled" or "Learning disability" is a bullshit term. It's a convenient label for teachers to lay on kids that actually learn by doing, not just listening and therefore don't fit the normal classroom mold.
Based on my experience (1st hand) the term is bullshit and needs to not be here.
I understand wiki is about consensus, so, I will not pull that phrase out if it gets put back in.
Just an explanation
—
Kosh Naluboutes, Nalubotes
Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 16:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting point of view and I can see your reasoning and opposition to the term but unfortunately we can't change how medicine or psychiatry categorises dare I say "impairments" or "differences". So I have to agree with Onorem.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Behaviour such as indirectly speaking ill of others, not answering questions, and not focusing on content should be avoided. I've seen this behaviour recently on others talk pages, the talk page, and also in edit summaries. Can we please stop?-- scuro ( talk) 15:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Guys
I just added auto archiving to this talkpage, I saw this article mentioned at ANI and thought that I'd might try to have a positive influence on it but then when I started viewing this talkpage it was simply too large for me to really grasp what is going on with the article. I think that auto archiving is something that we can all agree on here but if anyone has any objections then please let me know.-- 194x144x90x118 ( talk) 13:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This theory denies that ADHD exists. It is fringe opinion and belongs on the controversies page.-- scuro ( talk) 04:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
That is cited to a publication by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, a high quality secondary source. Do you have a secondary source to dispute this scuro?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes NICE conclude that but also acknowledge that the disorder has a number of controversies. Insomnia is a valid disorder but its pharmacological treatment and over-diagnosis is controversial. I have been for the past number of days adding more and more data on the controversies of ADHD as you have requested. I will continue to expand on controversies sections with more citations as you requested. Please be patient.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The sources used are mostly good quality secondary sources. Please provide sources for your view point.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Firstly it is not my source and not my edit. The reference says that there is considerable controversy surrounding ADHD and devotes a section discussing the controversies. The source also summarises the controversies as saying that some question whether ADHD exists. It is a National Institute for Clinical Excellence national report. Please quit trying to use your POV to trump a NICE national high quality source. Please provide peer reviewed sources for your position.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
LG...LG...I've taken the trouble to point out specific sections of the guidelines that counters what you state. I've cut and pasted these passages and also provided page numbers. I've also taken the trouble to cut and paste three specific passages on wiki policy and fringe viewpoint. Now granted the guideline does discuss controversy but at no point does it question the existence of ADHD. As a guideline it indicates what the best methods of treatment are. They did research on this so that the guideline would be informed. If they thought ADHD was FAKE why would they do that? Anyways the ball is in Doc James court and he refuses to play ball. These questions have been asked and no one is answering:
If you can't answer then the citation means nothing with regards to SC and SC certainly looks to be a clear cut case of a fringe theory.-- scuro ( talk) 03:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You know, that's actually, if not still now, at the very least in the past the dominant theory. "prominent adherents" include scientologists, and people who don't have ADHD/don't have to live with someone with ADHD. Just look in the talk page/talk archives/past vandalism on this page alone! How many (→Replaced content with "FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE!!!!! ADHD DOESN"T EXIST!!!") s have we gotten? a lot.-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 03:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help) Ignoring those who have views that are different from that of pro pharma / pro ADHD by the way does not make these people not exist. Thankfully wikipedia does not have a memory hole. Unionhawk's comment is well put. People beleive these alternative views which is exactly why we have people coming here a replacing the entire page with the words FAKE. It makes one think that maybe ADHD is just a bit controversial. :-) --
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 03:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
(←)Um... wtf? You aren't asking to have it removed? Isn't what this started as? Removing that viewpoint? I'm so confused now...-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
As per usual scuro please provide a citation saying that it is fringe for your arguements. At present it is reliably cited.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The Social Construct Theory of ADHD believes that ADHD is FAKE. I've pointed out that this is a fringe theory [ [2]] and removed the section. No one made the case why this is not a fringe theory yet the section was reverted back. I put a POV tag on the section. The tag was removed. Diff here -> [ [3]] That tag specifically states not to remove it till the conflict is resolved. The might is right approach is very uncivil and has been alive and well on this page now for over a year.-- scuro ( talk) 03:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Unionhawk. I did not write any of this info on SC just found references for it. We are not here to determine the truth but to reflect what is out there in the published literature. No one else has come forwards with a definitive cause of ADHD. Therefore until someone does many theories will abound.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I have previous to these comments added four references to books and the peer reviewed literature to support these passages. I have also added the name of one of the most well known adherents who has extensively published on the topic.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please provide citations for your viewpoint scuro. At present it is reliably cited with several citations. Your POV does not trump reliable sources. Thank you.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, I believe that the SC theory belongs on Wikipedia, I think that I probably wrote the original article using content from the Controversies article. What I question is if the SC theory belongs on the main ADHD page. Doc James, did you add Thomas Szasz as a proponent of this theory on the main article? Did not TS form the CCHR with Scientology and state this about the CCHR? “We should all honor CCHR because it is really the organization that for the first time in human history has organized a politically, socially, internationally significant voice to combat psychiatry. This has never been done in human history before.” [ [4]] Is he not seen as an anti-psychiatry critic? Wouldn't anti-psychiatry viewpoints be fringe viewpoint with regards to causes of ADHD. They don't believe ADHD exists.-- scuro ( talk) 22:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
(←)Just ignore him... Would it make you happy if I cut the word "um" out of my vocabulary? I mean, seriously...-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)