| Revision as of 13:50, 9 January 2008 editSs06470 (talk | contribs)461 edits →Should this page be deleted?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:57, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,227 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{WPMED|class= Start|auto=yes|importance=}} | |||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= | ||
| {{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Mid|neurology=yes|psychiatry=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Skepticism |importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Disability}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Autism}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Copied|collapse=yes | |||
| |from1 = Social construct theory of ADHD |from_oldid1 = 1048131123 |to1 = Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies |date1 = 11:25, 11 December 2021 |merge1 = yes |diff1 = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies&diff=1059751283&oldid=1058612835 | |||
| |from2 = Social construct theory of ADHD |from_oldid2 = 1048131123 |to2 = Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies |date2 = 11:27, 24 February 2022 |merge2 = yes |diff2 = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies&diff=1073754098&oldid=1069963758 | |||
| |from3 = Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder |from_oldid3 = 1072886428 |to3 = Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies |date3 = 01:04, 25 February 2022 |merge3 = no |diff3 = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies&diff=1073851972&oldid=1073760224 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Controversial-issues}} | |||
| {{page views}} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies/Archive index | |||
| |mask=Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |||
| |indexhere=yes}} | |||
| <!-- auto-archiving for sporadic discussions: archive 2 threads when 7 threads are reached --> | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 5 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 2 | |||
| |algo = old(180d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Broken anchors|links= | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Capsules) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Capsules","appear":{"revid":219887839,"parentid":219366164,"timestamp":"2008-06-17T09:14:58Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":429691870,"parentid":429586238,"timestamp":"2011-05-18T08:30:15Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> | |||
| }} | |||
| == Merge from ] == | |||
| {{Discussion top|result=There was '''strong consensus in favor of merging''' ] into ]. ] ⁂ ] 00:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)}} | |||
| A majority of the content on ] could sit comfortably within the main body of this ], with the subsection "]" better fitting ']' in particular. (See: <small>]</small>) Previously, the content of the subsection below the link to the page in question was one misinterpretation of a scientific paper and another unsourced reference to the beliefs of ]. If those particular beliefs are to be included in the transfer I believe it would be best to point out ]. It might also be useful to include the of the late Dr. Richard Saul, which in summary are that symptoms of ADHD are in actuality the result of other psychological issues making treatment via stimulants detrimental, in the merge between the two sections. His concerns function well as a bridge between questioning ADHD's biology and issues surrounding its social construct, and might give more context for the importance of how physiological differences in ADHD patients help establish it as a unique disorder. For a non-opinion source, Dr. Saul has written a book with the same provocative title as the article. | |||
| I have never merged a page and, due to the subject's complexity, feel it would be best left to someone more experienced. Thank you! — ] (]) 02:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support'''. Basically I think that the theory should just be a section in this article rather than a single standalone piece. @{{u|VariousDeliciousCheeses}} (great name by the way) wait a month or two and then if there is consensus give the merge a go yourself. I'm happy if you want to ping me to check if our afterwards if you need any help. Cheers ] (]) 22:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I have '''complicated opinions''' on this one. This article has an incredible degree of overlap with other ADHD articles, and while it has notability, it . So I '''agree that it should be merged ''somewhere'''''. The problem is, I despise the controversy article. I think it's a major ] hazard because the list-ish nature of it makes it hard to assess what's due, and the word "controversy" is kinda just bait for POV. The name also implies that ADHD is controversial - and it is - but "the facts" are also very established scientifically. The controversy is all cultural/societal stuff (this will come back later). So I don't love the idea of putting more stuff into that article. | |||
| == Evidence that hyperactivity is a genetic trait == | |||
| :I do also have an issue with classifying the social construct theory purely as a "controversy" - yes, most of it is controversial, but some parts overlap with genuinely important points, for example, the social model of disability is a major theory, and it does apply to impairments that arise from ADHD. Both articles also would fit far better into the "Society and culture" section from ] (described as, "This might include social perceptions, cultural history, stigma, economics, religious aspects, awareness, legal issues, and notable cases" and is distinct from history, described as "Early discoveries, historical figures, and outdated treatments"). | |||
| :So, here's my actual take on this: '''merge both into a new article'''. A new society and culture page (probably something like ]) is created; most of the information in controversy and the entirety of the social construct article go there. A society and culture section is created on the main ADHD article; that replaces the controversy section and part of the society section that's under "Causes". This removes the POV temptation that is the controversies article, allows for a less fragmented coverage of societal issues, and reduces the ridiculous number of overlapping articles we have. | |||
| :Also, I'm happy to help with whatever merging is needed :) (please ping me if you respond, I'm pretty bad at checking back on things) --] (]) 05:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*'''Support''' merge both into a new, broader article on ADHD in society and culture. ] (]) 23:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' merge - controversies article itself should be restructured and renamed at some point but I think this first step is straightforward ] (] '''·''' ]) 04:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support merge'''. It smells like a POV-fork. The controversy article has problems, but adding this content into that article would help. I would support a later merge/renaming of the controversy article to '''ADHD in society and culture'''. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 15:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{Discussion bottom}} | |||
| == Is it worth suggesting changes atm? == | |||
| From "Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Nature, Course, Outcomes, and Comorbidity," by Russell A. Barkley, Ph.D.: | |||
| I came across this article recently and noticed a few things I thought could be worth querying here (e.g. things that sound a bit misleading, things that maybe don't belong ++). However, seeing the discussion on whether to change the whole page to ADHD in society and culture, is it even worth me bringing anything up now, or is it all going to be overhauled anyway? | |||
| FWIW I think the proposal to rename is a good idea. A title like "ADHD controversies" does sound a bit "spicy" somehow, in comparison to "ADHD in society and culture". To me the word "controversy" kind of sparks an "ooh what's the dirt" reaction. E.g. imagine an article titled, idk, "Epilepsy controversies" - if you weren't aware of any, there is probably now curiosity to know what they are, or at least confusion over why such an article exists. This is an international platform and you can't *assume* anyone who reads it is already even vaguely aware of ADHD controversy, so an article title like this sort of "legitimises" it further. (Just to clarify, I'm not disagreeing that controversy should be covered.) That's my take at least, hope it makes sense. | |||
| "Genetic Factors | |||
| Evidence for a genetic basis to this disorders comes from three sources: family studies, twin studies, and, most recently, molecular genetic studies identifying individual candidate genes. Again, nearly all of this research applies to the Combined Type of ADHD. | |||
| Just for transparency: I am a Misplaced Pages editing newbie, and I'm diagnosed with ADHD. ] (]) 17:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Family Aggregation Studies. | |||
| For years, researchers have noted the higher prevalence of psychopathology in the parents and other relatives of children with ADHD. Between 10 to 35 percent of the immediate family members of children with ADHD are also likely to have the disorder with the risk to siblings of the ADHD children being approximately 32 percent (Biederman et al., 1992; Biederman, Faraone, Keenan, et al., 1990; Pauls, 1991; Welner et al., 1977). Even more striking, research shows that if a parent has ADHD, the risk to the offspring is 57 percent (Biederman, Faraone, Mick, et al., 1995). Thus, ADHD clusters significantly among the biological relatives of children or adults with the disorder, strongly implying a hereditary basis to this condition. Subsequently, these elevated rates of disorders also have been noted in African-American ADHD samples (Samuel et al., 1999) as well as in ADHD girls compared to boys (Faraone et al., 2000). | |||
| :{{u|RapturousRatling}}, suggestions are always welcome! Feel free to make changes as well, but be warned that there's a lot of wikipedia rules that aren't always intuitive, so someone might undo the change. If that happens, just take a breath, read anything that they link to, and ask for clarification on the talk page here if it's still unclear. If you would prefer to stick to the talk page for a while, that's also completely fine.{{pb}}For a bit of context on how renaming/"]" works, the content of the article remains, the title is changed, and then people edit it to fit the new title if needed. Because it would still be a very similar article, just with a modified tone, a lot of suggestions would still be relevant. --] (]) 05:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{reply to|Xurizuri}} OK cool. I think I’ll stick to the talk page for now! Will try get around to posting a list here soon. ] (]) 12:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| These studies of families further suggest that ADHD with CD may be a distinct familial subtype of ADHD. By separating the group of ADHD children into those with and without conduct disorder (CD), it has been shown that the conduct problems, substance abuse, and depression in the parents and | |||
| other relatives are related more to the presence of CD in the ADHD children than to ADHD itself (August & Stewart, 1983; Biederman, Faraone, Keenan, et al., 1992; Faraone, Biederman, et al., 1995; Faraone, Biederman, Mennin, Russell, & Tsuang, 1998; Lahey et al., 1988). Rates of hyperactivity or ADHD remain high even in relatives of the group of ADHD children without CD (Biederman, Faraone, Keenan, et al., 1992) but depression and antisocial spectrum disorders are most likely to appear in the comorbid group. Using sib-pairs in which both siblings had ADHD, Smalley and colleagues have also recently supported this view through findings that CD significantly clusters among the families of only those sib-pairs having CD (Smalley et al., 2000). | |||
| ==Wiki Education assignment: English 202A Writing in the Social Sciences== | |||
| Some research has also suggested that girls who manifest ADHD may need to have a greater genetic loading (higher family member prevalence) than do males with ADHD (Smalley et al., 2000). Faraone and colleagues also found some evidence in support of this view in that male siblings from families with one affected child were more likely to have ADHD than were female siblings from these families (Faraone et al., 1995). They also reported that the gender difference noted above for ADHD (3:1 males-to-females) may apply primarily to children from families in which either the child or a parent has antisocial behavior. | |||
| {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Penn_State_Lehigh_Valley/English_202A_Writing_in_the_Social_Sciences_(Fall_2022) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ], ] | start_date = 2022-08-23 | end_date = 2022-12-09 }} | |||
| <span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 01:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)</span> | |||
| Interestingly, research by Faraone and Biederman (1997) suggests that depression among family members of children with ADHD may be a nonspecific expression of the same genetic contribution that is related to ADHD. This is based on their findings that family members of children with ADHD are at increased risk for major depression while individuals having major depression have first-degree relatives at increased risk for ADHD. Even so, as noted above, the risk for depression among family members is largely among those children having ADHD with CD. | |||
| == Biased intro == | |||
| Adoption Research. | |||
| “Despite the scientifically well-established nature of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder(ADHD), its diagnosis, and its treatment, each of these has been controversial since the 1970s.” | |||
| Another line of evidence for genetic involvement in ADHD has emerged from studies of adopted children. Cantwell (1975) and Morrison and Stewart (1973) both reported higher rates of hyperactivity in the biological parents of hyperactive children than in adoptive parents having such children. Both studies suggest that hyperactive children are more likely to resemble their biological parents than their adoptive parents in their levels of hyperactivity. Yet, both studies were retrospective and both failed to study the biological parents of the adopted hyperactive children as a comparison group (Pauls, 1991). Cadoret and Stewart (1991) studied 283 male adoptees and found that if one of the biological parents had been judged delinquent or to have an adult criminal conviction, the adopted away sons had a higher likelihood of having ADHD. A later study (van den Oord, Boomsma, & Verhulst, 1994) using biologically related and unrelated pairs of international adoptees identified a strong genetic component (47 percent of the variance) for the Attention Problems dimension of the Child Behavior Checklist, a rating scale commonly used in research on ADHD. More recently, a comparison of the families of adopted ADHD children to those living with their biological parents and to a control group also showed the same pattern of an elevated prevalence of ADHD among just the biological parents of the ADHD children (6% vs. 18% vs. 3% respectively) (Sprich, Biederman, Crawford, Mundy, & Faraone, 2000). Thus, like the family association studies discussed earlier, results of adoption studies point to a strong possibility of a significant hereditary contribution to hyperactivity. | |||
| This phrase is framing the controversies as if they are not mainstream, unsupported, contrary to factual evidence from the beginning. It is clear that something can be both “well-established” scientifically and still be highly controversial, so “despite” is misplaced in this sentence. Serious issues with the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD fit within the category of “well-established,” being recognized both by the scientific literature and by professional psychiatrists. | |||
| Twin Studies. | |||
| Since the last edition of this text, the number of twin studies of ADHD and its underlying behavioral dimensions has increased markedly. More exciting has been the striking consistency across all of these studies. This research strategy provides a third avenue of evidence for a genetic contribution to ADHD. But it also provides a means of testing any competing environmental theories of the disorder (e.g., that ADHD is due to poor parenting, adverse family life, excessive TV viewing, etc.). That is because twin studies can not only compute the proportion of variance in a trait that is genetically influenced (heritability), but also the proportion that results from common or shared environment (things twins and siblings have in common growing up in the same family) and that which results from unique environment (all non-genetic factors or events that are unique or specific to one child and not to others in the family) (Plomin, Defries, McClearn, & Rutter, 1997). | |||
| The article would be improved if it showed clearly that controversy surrounding ADHD is based on valid evidence and on the principles of science. ] (]) 17:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Early research on ADHD using twins looked only at twin concordance (likelihood of twins sharing the same disorder) and did not compute these estimates of heritability, shared, and unique environment. These early studies demonstrated a greater agreement (concordance) for symptoms of hyperactivity and inattention between monozygotic (MZ) compared to dizygotic twins (DZ) (O'Connor, Foch, Sherry, & Plomin, 1980; Willerman, 1973). Studies of very small samples of twins (Heffron, Martin, & Welsh, 1984; Lopez, 1965) found complete (100%) concordance for MZ twins for hyperactivity and far less agreement for DZ twins. For instance, Gilger, Pennington, and DeFries (1992) found that if one twin was diagnosed as ADHD, the concordance for the disorder was 81 percent in MZ twins and 29 percent in DZ twins. Sherman, McGue, and Iacono (1997) found that the concordance for MZ twins having ADHD (mother identified) was 67 percent versus 0 percent for DZ twins. | |||
| :The article will not be changed just based on your opinion that there is such {{tq|valid evidence}}. You need ] for that. --] (]) 17:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wiki Education assignment: ANTH 193 - Behavioral Science in Practice== | |||
| Later research has computed heritability and environmental contributions to ADHD. One such study of a large sample of twins (570) found that approximately 50 percent of the variance in hyperactivity and inattention in this sample was due to heredity while 0-30 percent may have been environmental (Goodman & Stevenson, 1989). The relatively limited number of items assessing these two behavioral dimensions, however, may have reduced the sensitivity of the study to genetic effects. Later and even larger twin studies have found an even higher degree of heritability for ADHD, ranging from .75 to .97 (see Levy & Hay, 2001; Thapar, 1999 for reviews) (Burt, Krueger, McGue, Iacono, 2001; Coolidge et al., 2001; Gjone, Stevenson, & Sundet, 1996; Gjone, Stevenson, Sundet, & Eilertsen, 1996; Hudziak, 1997; Levy, Hay, McStephen, Wood, & Waldman, 1997; Rhee, Waldman, Hay, & Levy, 1995; Sherman, Iacono, & McGue, 1997; Sherman, McGue, & Iacono, 1997; Silberg et al., 1996; Thapar, Harrington, & McGuffin, 2001; Thapar, Hervas, & McGuffin, 1995; van den Oord, Verhulst, & Boomsma, 1996). Thus, twin studies indicate that the average heritability of ADHD is at least 0.80, being nearly that for human height (.80-.91) and higher than that found for intelligence (.55-.70). These studies consistently find little, if any, effect of shared (rearing) environment on the traits of ADHD while sometimes finding a small significant contribution for unique environmental events. In their totality, shared environmental factors seem to account for 0-6 percent of individual differences in the behavioral trait(s) related to ADHD. It is for this reason that I stated at the opening of this section that little attention would be given here to discussing purely environmental or social factors as involved in the causation of ADHD. | |||
| {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/San_Jose_State_University/ANTH_193_-_Behavioral_Science_in_Practice_(Fall_2023) | assignments = ], ], ], ], ], ] | start_date = 2023-08-22 | end_date = 2023-12-10 }} | |||
| <span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 19:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)</span> | |||
| The twin studies cited above have also been able to indicate the extent to which individual differences in ADHD symptoms are the result of nonshared environmental factors. Such factors not only include those typically thought of as involving the social environment, but also all biological factors that are nongenetic in origin. Factors in the nonshared environment are those events or conditions that will have uniquely affected only one twin and not the other. Besides biological hazards or neurologically injurious events that may have befallen only one member of a twin pair, the nonshared environment also includes those differences in the manner in which parents may have treated each child. Parents do not interact with all of their children in an identical fashion and such unique parent-child interactions are believed to make more of a contribution to individual differences among siblings than do those factors about the home and child-rearing that are common to all children in the family. Twin studies to date have suggested that approximately 9-20 percent of the variance in hyperactive-impulsive-inattentive behavior or ADHD symptoms can be attributed to such nonshared environmental (nongenetic) factors (Levy et al., 1997; Sherman, Iacono et al., 1997; Silberg et al., 1996). A portion of this variance, however, must be attributed to the error of the measure used to assess the symptoms. Research suggests that the nonshared environmental factors also contribute disproportionately more to individual differences in other forms of child psychopathology than do factors in the shared environment (Pike & Plomin, 1996). Thus, if researchers were interested in identifying environmental contributors to ADHD, these studies suggest that such research should focus on those biological and social experiences that are specific and unique to the individual and are not part of the common environment to which other siblings have been exposed." | |||
| --] 03:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Dr. Biederman cited again and again and again above has written 294 (!) papers on ADHD. He is the most cited expert in this field. Here is an interview with him You might be interested to know about his relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. He has received research support from Shire, Lilly, Wyeth, Pfizer, Cephlon, Janssen, and Noven. He is on the speakers bureau for GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, Wyeth, Shire, Alza, and Cephalon. He is also on the advisory board for Lilly, Celltech and Shire, Noven and Alza/McNeil. | |||
| May 18th 2000 Marcia Angell – who was then the editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine – wrote a surprisingly candid editorial titled, “Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” Angell referred to the “Faustian bargain” that takes place when scientists accept pharmaceutical money.She felt so strongly about it that she subsequently wrote a book The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. | |||
| It should also be noted Richard Horton, editor of Lancet, England's most respected medical journal had this to say in the New York Review of Books (March 11, 2004) “The Dawn of McScience” “ Indeed, medical journals have become an important but under recognized obstacle to scientific truth-telling. Journals have devolved into information-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry. " | |||
| You have a lot of citations in your piece, which seems to be greatly valued here. Unfortunately, the question is whether the 294 articles (and many of the other citations) establish valid information or are part of an attempt to deceive the public | |||
| == Proposed rename == | |||
| I'd suggest renaming this page to ], as that title is much more encyclopedia-like than the current one, which sounds rather informal. Any objections? ] 08:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* ]...? Regards, ] 17:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Done. —]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 08:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I disagree with the current name of the article. 'Controversy' implies that the criticism of ADHD is not widespread. But an informal survey of laymen indicates that doubt and distrust of the diagnosis is widely accepted. The content of this article does not present a 'controversy' as such, but an assortment of criticisms. I propose that the article be renamed to 'Criticism of ADHD' or something similar. Is there any strong objection to renaming it 'Anti-ADHD' again? ] 21:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think merely having an article called Controversy about ADHD sends a strong message that this is a major issue. I would rather keep the current name. -- ] 01:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::'Controversy about' does seem more encyclopedia-like to me, vs. 'anti-ADHD,' which tends to be more ambiguous (opposed to having the condition? opposed to the name? opposed to the people? opposed to ...?). Calling it 'Criticism of' seems to me to face the same problem. The current name seems to be more standard. Library of Congress subject headings, for example, tend to have something like "Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder -- Controversial literature," so the term "controversy" seems to be a useful flag within the reference community. ] 03:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think "Controversy about ADHD" is good, but somehow the phrasing with the word "about" seems clunky. How about "Controversy over ADHD" or "Controversy regarding ADHD"? -- ] | ] 05:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Cleanup required == | |||
| I've tagged the article with 'cleanup' as there are a lot of shortcomings at the moment, IMO. While we have some good information here, I'd like to address the following: | |||
| * The long text on the picture. Some of this should be moved into the body of the article instead. | |||
| * The picture: can someone please indicate which brain (left or right) is the ADHD brain scan and which brain is 'non-ADHD' brain scan? | |||
| * The lack of citing of sources | |||
| * Apparently POV sections | |||
| * Lack of information concerning arguments against these theories | |||
| * Structure of the document. As I see it, there should be three main sections, one addressing theories that ADHD doesn't exist and is a misdiagnosis, one addressing concerns over labelling it as a pathology when it should perhaps be seen more as natural variations, and one addressing alternative theories of the origin of the condition. At the moment, all three of these are jumbled together and the flow of the article is hard to follow. | |||
| I don't really have time to work on this right now, but I'll be putting this article on my watchlist and heading back over here in the next few days to start on it. ] 08:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Re: the long text in the picture. Perhaps the picture and the information in the text should be rearranged into a separate section. But, the current presentation of the picture and the information points out the shortcomings of the PET scan research in a way that perhaps a straightforward approach would be inadequate to accomplish. Your other comments are very astute and any assistance in improving the article would be appreciated. Most of this text was lifted from the ADHD page, and perhaps some of the attribution was lost in the process. Perhaps some of the references on that page should be moved to this one? ] 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| OK, I've tried restructuring the article, and I think it flows better now. There are still a number of sections that are confusing, IMO, but I'm not sure what to do about them because I'm not sure I fully understand the arguments involved. E.g. the genetic causes section: why exactly does a genetic basis that is not fully understood present any problem to the mainstream view of ADHD? | |||
| I've also gone through and added notes where I feel references are needed to back up statements made. Some of these references shouldn't be hard to find, as they are references to mainstream beliefs about ADHD that are contradicted by a controversial belief, but we probably need those as well as references about the controversial beliefs themselves. The latter will probably be hard to find, as most such references are self-published, and self-published articles are unfortunately not generally acceptable as sources for wikipedia articles, according to the relevant policies. I'm not sure what to do about this. ] 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == “See also” section == | |||
| Reference to the ] article and others has been added. Incidentally, I have written an OR article about the obscene alliance of abusive parents with psychiatrists , and I just wrote a letter to Jimbo in which I mention the nasty ] article . —] 03:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Use of Dr Sobo's article as a source for this article == | |||
| We have a lot of content on this page that references ''ADHD and Other Sins of Our Children'' by Simon Sobo M.D.. I don't wish to cast aspersions on Dr Sobo (who I understand has contributed to this article himself as ]) or the validity of his research, I'm not sure if we can continue to use this article as a reference. The problem is that according to wikipedia's ] policy, self published information is not an acceptable source except for uncontentious biographical information. | |||
| Now, it could be argued that this article's topic is, essentially, ''what different people believe about ADHD that is not the mainstream view of the psychiatric profession'', and that the article is therefore providing biographical information: it is asserting that this is what Dr Sobo believes, and I don't think that this is a contentious assertion. However, the presentation of the information is likely to be interpreted as presenting facts about ADHD and the evidence for its existence, not merely on what Dr Sobo believes. In this context, it is fairly clearly ], and is as such prohibited. | |||
| I'm not sure how to procede from here. I don't want to simply delete it, because I feel the points raised are significant. Dr Sobo has a good reputation, and has had articles critical of standard psychiatric practices published in a number of sources. I'm sure his point of view here has at least some validity. But I don't see how it can be expressed within the policies that are in place for wikipedia. ] 22:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| --] 02:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)I give up. I notice that the clear explanation of the PET scan being used to lead this article has been stripped of its content. That explanation there was not an opinion. It was simply an explanation of what that PET scan shows What better place to put that explanation than here, the ADHD controversy article but alas... How nice it is to repeatedly refer to what "Dr. Sobo believes" rather than to deal with the content issues. AS for self published material I challenge anyone to get this material published given the extreme bias of the journals. That is the reason I have spent so much time carefully documenting what is going on in my profession. If it werem't so serious it would almost be funny. So keep your article any way you want it to be, Jules H. You are making a major contribution to continuing the one sided point of view being presented to the public | |||
| :The new description of the image is certainly worse than the old, but there is no shortage of ] criticism of Zametkin et al. For example, the control group had a much higher proportion of women or prior medication exposure (Baumeister and Hawkins 2001; Leo and Cohen 2003). --] 03:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The Misplaced Pages ] suggests keeping them to three lines or fewer. I edited the caption to comply with this guideline. It was not the place for the information that had been put there. If anyone wants to put it back somewhere in the body of the article, I'm not going to stop them. As to phrasing Dr. Sobo's opinions in the form of statements about his beliefs rather than as facts, that is all that can be done here -- these are contested opinions to which there is no clear right or wrong answer. We cannot simply ignore the fact that they are minority opinions, and we must therefore express them as such. I don't make the rules that require publication before we can use an article as a reference, although I do believe the rule is a necessary one. Misplaced Pages is not a place to present fringe opinions as if they were fact. It should reflect the generally accepted understanding, and note where others disagree the basis for this disagreement. I think the article in question can be used for this purpose, but the phrasing must be careful to avoid giving the impression that Misplaced Pages is making statements about the accuracy of the research. ] 07:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| --] 13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Limegreen I know there has been other criticisms of Zametkin's work and for that matter Castellano's work for failing to take into account the findings might be the result of prior medication exposure. Indeed, Castellanos has been hard at work trying to prove his critics wrong, which ''' I respect'''. My criticism is that this PET scan picture has been used over and over over as "proof" the whole problem is biological. The contrasting pictures of the brain are amazing when presented as a picture without an explanation. After seeing it, how could any one argue that the differences are not biological? Except once an explanation is given about what the picture represents it is clearly meaningless. I'll go further and put it straighforwardly. It is a big fat lie to show the picture and then intentionally not discuss what it represents. Rather than address the other criticisms I thought simply revealing what this picture is was the most dramatic criticism of the unstoppable freight train which biological advocates, stoked by billions of pharmaceutical dollars, are foisting upon practitioners. | |||
| As for your criticism Jules H. I am glad you are willing to concede that an article about ADHD controversies can include opinions, although I suppose by your reasoning that "there is no clear right or wrong answer" everything comes down to who has the most citations, or what "experts" believe. I don't know what your knowlege of the subject matter is, but I would invite you to sample some of my writings to get a feeling for the subject matter at hand. The basis of thinking about a subject is to weigh the evidence and the reasoning of those with opinions and try to conclude what makes the most sense. Unfortunately science does not hold the answer yet about these subjects. For now, trying to sift the evidence and the reasoning of proponents is the best we can do given the limited state of our hard knowledge. | |||
| I have been citing the many very important people who are disturbed by the money and power of pharmaceutical companies(enough for the editor of NEJM to not only write her editorial exposing what is going on, but then go on to write a book about the subject.) I have also provided a link where I have defended drug companies, and the content of emails to me asking me to write for Peter Breggin and/or scientology front organizations and turned them down because they have gone way too far in condemning medication. I am also not claiming that only I am dispassionate. I may be wrong about plenty of issues. Obviously I have a fiery temperament, am an iconoclast and enjoy a good debate. But I don't simply choose any old subject to argue about. I get fired up when people are clearly being dishonest, whatever the source. That is the reason that I defended Lilly Pharm when it was getting a bum rap.The kind of murderous drug company depicted in the movie "The Constant Gardener" was completely offensive because it went too too far. But I strongly feel drug companies' hired guns ("experts") are distorting the discussion on this topic and many others. | |||
| It isn't only direct coercion, although there are many mailings to doctors that through sheer repetition make doubtful assertions seem true. There are also pendulum swings in paradigms that make certain points of view officially sanctioned and others verboten. It is not unlike the various schisms that take place in political parties where one group is kicked out of the in group, and banned from respectability. That is what happened to the former rulers of academia and most of the journals, the psychoanalysts. To even hint at sympathy for these "discredited" ideas is to reveal yourself to be a secret believer. It should be that way, but in fact it is. | |||
| I will repeat what I have written before. On many occasions academicians have whispered to me that they admire my "courage", which is ironic, because outside of academia it takes no courage to simply state what you believe. I might add that in many conversation with real scientists doing the basic lab research that leads to discoveries, they joked about the whole "expert" thing that is so popular with "scientific" clinicins. If you look at the statement of the discoverer of Prozac when he was given a prize (I'll track down the details) his emphasis was not on his expertise but on how little we understand. Regarding the politics of belief one other fact might interest you. The professor who invited me to give the Psychiatry Grand Round Lecture at the University of Alabama (on a different subject)asked me to communicate with him on his private e mail, so worried was he that the content of some of my e mails might get him in trouble. It is noteworthy that our private discussions, initiated by him, quickly turned to the absurdity of the ADHD literature. You might also look into Professor Healy's withdrawn academic appointment once his views on Prozac became known. So for the thousandth time we are not dealing with a topic where intellectual integrity characterizes the debate. It is in fact pathetic that my views, when they are freely expressed will not be published by mainstream journals whose citations you so admire | |||
| One other comment. I am as opposed to 3/4's of the criticisms and nut theories about ADHD posted on these pages. I am especially opposed to material generated by scientologists. I am beginning to wonder if my spirited posts here are becoming counterproductive since the more I argue my point of view the more they become the focus of editors while truly crazy ideas go undisturbed | |||
| == Citations in 'Genetic Basis of Hyperactivity' == | |||
| The '{{citation needed}}' tag begs a source at two points in this section, but I thought the statements were sufficiently general to accommodate many points of view, and so they do not reference specific sources. For instance, there is no identified defective gene that corresponds to ADHD. I propose that the section be modified to state specifically that there is no defective gene mentioned in the ADHD literature. (That we might be 'searching' for one based on no evidence, may be enough comment on the scientific status of the disorder.) The followup statement merely emphasizes that the hereditary basis of ADHD does not prove that it is a disorder. What citations can be made for the observations that there is no evidence of a defective gene and that there is no proof that this heredity is a disorder? The section may very well be rewritten to avoid the perceived lack of sources; anyone is welcome to improve it. ] 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've changed the subsection. I hope this meets with everyone's approval. Please discuss here, before making any major changes. ] | |||
| == Cleanup notice == | |||
| This article has been substantially altered since the cleanup tag was posted. Any strong objections to removing it? ] 20:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I still think there's a lot of work needed on this article, so would prefer it remained. But if you really disagree, feel free. I probably don't have time to do any further work on this article any time soon. ] 10:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == PET scan description == | |||
| --] 21:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)I've changed the section accompanying the pet scan. This is getting ridiculous. The only controversy is whether the differences in ADHD brain activity are due to the fact that the parts of the brain that are used to accomplish the task are broken and can't be used or simply are not being used. Whoever wrote the latest simply does not understand what a PET scan is. They don't measure the energy of the brain. The whole thing is gobblygook. | |||
| :The brain consumes sugar and generates heat; that is energy output. PET scans follow the sugar where it is consumed, and help model the locations where heat is generated. It may well be that some brains consume more or less sugar than others; or, generate more or less heat than others. The fact that some locations in the brain are more metabolically active in certain people than others does not prove anything by itself; this data must be interpreted by a person, and that is how its significance is determined. As with CPUs in computers, there may very well be differences in wiring or speed or energy metabolism between one brain and another that cannot be accounted for by this method. Maybe ADHD brains do not need as much sugar as other brains to accomplish the same task. The apparently lower level of activity may not reflect a biological difference or a difference in attention span; it may very well reflect something else altogether. ] 14:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think this picture should go. It gives people the misleading impression that brain scans are actually credible. -- ] 19:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::No. This image is an artifact of a specific approach to studying personality. Time will tell whether this approach is valid or not. ] 21:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Brain scans do have a degree of credibility. Admittedly, this image is ] in scientific terms, but perhaps there are not others that are freely replicable. There was a review of all the ADHD-brain scan studies published last year (Bush G, Valera EM, Seidman LJ. (2005) Functional neuroimaging of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A review and suggested future directions. BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY 57 (11): 1273-1284), which contains both a summary of the work so far, and covers quite a bit of the criticism of scanning studies.--] 03:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Edits by 68.83.221.88 == | |||
| Freyr reverted these edits, presumably because we shouldn't have notes like these on the article page. They might be worth discussing, though, so I'm C&P'ing them here, including a little context from the article. ] 18:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If brain imaging is done while one person moves their arm and another doesn't there will also be a demonstrable difference. | |||
| Despite this shortcoming, this brain image and many similar pictures of the brain are repeatedly displayed as proof of the supposed biological cause of the condition. --] 23:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)The most parsimonious explanation is that either could be the case. A biological problem is keeping them from doing the task or a psychological problem is causing them to not pay attention to the '''assigned task''' And yes 25 ADHD patients could not be doing the '''assigned task''' That is what ADHD is all about. In any case the difference in the PET scan can be explained by a lack of effort. The issue about moving their arms is not that moving their arms can cause this divergence, it is that if you do a PET of an individual moving his arms and one not moving his arms the PET scan could be different. The PET scan simply shows where there is activity in the brain at a given moment. Using a dramatic picture where someone is paying attention to an assigned task and somepne isn't and using thhe two pictures as an illustration of a biological difference in the brains is silly to be charitable or intentionally misleading. (Those contrasting PET scans have been shown over and over as an illustration of biological difference) | |||
| The same teacher might not notice a child who forgets their papers, stares (entranced) at the carpet for long periods of time, or shows many of the recognized symptoms. | |||
| But critics point out that neurological differences exist among individuals just as with any human trait, such as eye color or height; and that stimulants have an effect on anyone, not just those diagnosed with ADHD. | |||
| In other words, ADHD may be better seen as a form of ]. // | |||
| :By this theory, a person cannot be impaired in 2 different contexts by an attribute that might be positive or neutral in some other context. But the "impairment" is an opinion, as is the neutrality or positivity of the attribute. I do not see how 2 identical opinions can rule out every other opinion as a possibility, no matter how authoratitve the opinions. This is not math, or physics we are discussing here. The whole basis of this "impairment" can be called into question by simple suggestions about the methodology for investigating it, or the theory behind it. ] 14:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == From the main ADHD article == | |||
| This came from the main ADHD article which already has an overly large section dedicated to the topic: --] 18:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''Another argument which has been offered against the diagnosis is that the behavior of putative ADHD sufferers is the "natural" way for children to behave in a situation which does not engage them. It has never been a simple task to teach children how to behave in a "grown up" fashion, and therefore great amounts of time and energy have traditonally been spent by parents and educators trying to inspire, cajole, threaten, lecture, bribe (and every other imaginable strategy) in the service of teaching a child how to gain self control, act with consideration for others, and do tasks that are not fun. In other words, it is argued, a child who is not successfully taught how to behave, obey the rules and stay on task will display all of the symptoms of ADHD. Those who place emphasis on the parental role in ADHD claim that while neurological impairments, or innate tendencies, can be a factor in the ability to stay focused on tasks being demanded, the "nature" (or biological) aspects of the nature vs.nurture controversy have been greatly exaggerated. They claim millions of children being diagnosed with this condition have nothing physically wrong with their brains. <ref></ref> | |||
| ''A believer that ADHD is a biological condition, Xavier Castellanos M.D., then head of ADHD research at the National Institute of Mental Health, (NIMH), <ref> </ref> has also expressed reservations about the extent of available biological information about that condition in an interview on ] in 2000: | |||
| :'''''Frontline:''''' ''"How does ADHD work on the brain? What do we know about it?"'' | |||
| :'''''Castellanos:''''' ''"We don't yet know what's going on in ADHD..."'' | |||
| :'''''Frontline:''''' ''"Give me one true fact about ADHD."'' | |||
| :'''''Castellanos''''' ''"The posterior inferior vermis of the cerebellum is smaller in ADHD. I think that that is a true fact. It's taken about five years to convince myself that that's the case. That's about as much as I know--that I'm confident about..."'' | |||
| <references/> | |||
| == Should there be suggestions on this page about diagnosis? == | |||
| "Anyone diagnosed with AD(H)D should have a complete evaluation by a behavioral optometrist." quote from the article | |||
| Making treatment or diagnosis suggestions does not seem to fit with the title of the article or the spirit of wikipedia. Perhaps this should be along the lines of stuff like alternative diagnosis. ] 02:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Jay Joseph == | |||
| Two books by ] challenge the current genetic theories, including the ADHD theories: | |||
| http://www.jayjoseph.net/GeneIllusionChapters.html | |||
| and | |||
| http://www.jayjoseph.net/MissingGeneChapters.html | |||
| ―] 07:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Lazy parents == | |||
| Would like to see a section about how lazy parents who would rather drug their kids up than actually parent them added to this article. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| +*+*+* I was highly skeptical of ADHD myself (even quite vocal about those 'lazy parents who want to drug their kids into complaciency' at times), until my son came along. I have two children, one with ADHD, one without. The difference with the same home, involved parenting style, same diet, ect, is very vast. He's responded very well to treatment, and went from getting in trouble all the time, climbing anything in sight and getting himself hurt, not getting his schoolwork done or being able to sit still and be quiet in class, and other symptoms to making straight A's in school, being more successful in controlling impulses (thus not doing things that drove potential friends away before), being more pleasant to be around and talk to, ect. He's much happier because he was so frustrated with himself before, he really was trying very hard; now he can acomplish what he sets out to do. -- Rachel | |||
| : There are numerous "faith based" critics yet they all lack a good scientific foundation for their claims. Speaking of lazy parents, Peter Breggin the outspoken anti-psych, came up with DADD as the cause of ADHD back in 1991. "...most so-called ADHD children are not receiving sufficient attention from their fathers who are separated from the family, too preoccupied with work and other things, or otherwise impaired in their ability to parent. In many cases the appropriate diagnosis is Dad Attention Deficit Disorder (DADD) (Breggin, 1991)....The "cure" for these children is more rational and loving attention from their dads. Young people are nowadays so hungry for the attention of a father that it can come from any male adult. Seemingly impulsive, hostile groups of children will calm down when a caring, relaxed, and firm adult male is around...." | |||
| : Yeah right, I fear Breggin has watched one to many Stephen Speilburg movies where children have an absent father and all is resolved when dad watches their baseball game. The world just ian't that simple. Will the Austic kid and Bipolar kid get better when dad coaches their team? | |||
| : There are numerous studies that show that this is not primarily an environmental disorder. Studies show that there is a strong genetic component to ADHD, it's more heritable then height or intelligence. --] 21:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It amazes me anyone really believes this disease. My brother was "diagnosed" with this "disease" and he can concentrate fine on a video game for 9 or 10 hours straight. He can't concentrate on schoolwork because he finds it boring. If you want to drug your kids into studying instead of teaching them discipline, be my guest, but no need to make up a disease to help parents feel a little better about doping up their kids simply so they can have a few less headaches as a parent. | |||
| It's not a disease, there is no agent that causes ADHD. You have been reading to much ]. His poor logic is visible in your ideas. --] 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : In the term "Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder", the term Hyperactivity involves the hyperactivity of attention. Those who are diagnosed with this disorder may exhibit extreme focus in some situations. Generally that is on things which interest them as interest can be the component which swings the switch into the on position. People with ADHD really tend to be either '''on''' task or '''off''' task, with nothing in between. The drugs which are used to treat ADHD will generally ''cause'' symptoms of ADHD in people who don't have it, as they are stimulants. See the for details on it. ] 20:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wow, because it's entirely not possible for someone to just be disinterested in one thing and interested in another, especially as a child. I'm sorry, but many a year ago I was given the battery of these tests and exams because I didn't "fit into class" well enough. Why? Because I was bored, because I blew through material at a higher rate. Other kids just plain arn't interested in the same things. I'm glad I wasn't born 10 years later, because I would have spent many years on prescription speed, aka Ritalin. Though since i'm not a doctor ''yet'', I still have a few years before I'll feel free to report on this as a valid source. --] 22:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to see an article that shows the difference between ''perspective'' and ''fact.'' It might clear up a few of the above users' doubts. Read the articles; they talk about the difference between concentrating on something the diagnosed finds interesting and something they find boring. Careful, lest you end up a "lazy parent" yourself. | |||
| -unsigned | |||
| ==POV== | |||
| This article is just a hodgepodge of POV. | |||
| ''Many critics of the diagnosis of ADHD do not agree that it should be classified as a disorder even though there is a wide body of clincal evidence that indicates ADHD causes impairment in life functioning and that behaviour associated with ADHD has been clinically shown to be abnormal in those with ADHD. Yet, these critics believe that it should only be considered a difference in methods of thought and mental organisation, more akin to a distinctive physique than to an actual disorder.'' | |||
| -Fairness of tone is lacking here. The clinical evidence is asserted as true and it's place in the article just serves to make the critics' point seem inferior and in total contradiction to science. | |||
| ''Also, much of the research about ADHD actually contradicts facts asserted by the mainstream psychiatric establishment. The brain scans that lead this article supposedly show the difference between an "ADHD" and "Normal" brain, yet Zametkin later admitted that differences in sampling led to any discovered differences in the 1990 study. There are massive ambigiutities still in the science and NIMH does not widely release their data for re-analysis by other researchers who may be critical of the concept of ADHD, which is exactly the opposite of the ideal scientific method.'' | |||
| -Ok, first the phrase "mainstream psychiatric establishment" is showing clear bias against psychiatry. last sentence is full of statements such as "there are massive ambigiuties still in science" and "exactly the opposite of the ideal scientific method". These arguments need to be sourced and ideally that whole section needs to be rewritten, pretty much nothing is sourced and only the critics views are really represented. | |||
| The section about ''Sub-Clinical ADHD'' is written without attributing views to anybody, and is partial toward the critics leaving most of their claims unchallenged while only putting in a token statement "However, the results achieved in clinical tests with medication and anecdotal evidence of parents, teachers, and both child and adult sufferers has been taken as proof that there is both a condition and successful treatment options for most people who meet the criteria for a diagnosis." which is compromised by phrases like "anecdotal evidence" and "has been taken as proof". | |||
| ''Confusion may also arise from the fact that ADD/ADHD symptoms vary with each individual, and some mimic those of other causes. A known fact is that, as the body (and brain) matures and grows, the symptoms and adaptability of the individual also change. Many individuals diagnosed with ADD/ADHD successfully develop coping skills, while others may never do so.'' | |||
| -If you assert that some point of view is confused you damn better source that statement | |||
| ''There are numerous, often contradictory, claims that the brain is physically different in children with ADHD.'' | |||
| -Using the phrase "often contradictory" undermines the validity of this statement and it makes pretty much no sense. | |||
| ''There are numerous, often contradictory, claims that the brain is physically different in children with ADHD. However, even if this eventually is confirmed, by no means does it establish that the condition is biological. Behavior can cause changes to the structure of the brain. For example, learning Braille causes enlargement of the part of the motor cortex that controls finger movements. After they have passed their licensing exam, London taxi drivers have been found to have a significantly enlarged hippocampus compared to non-taxi drivers. Patients abused during their childhood with post traumatic stress disorder will have a flattened out hippocampus. Professional musicians have brains that are different from non-musicians. Monks who meditate show measurable differences in their prefrontal lobes.) So diminished concerted effort when confronted with tasks thought to be drudgery (homework, paying attention to teachers, and the like) even if not caused by differences in the brain, could have brain changing effects.'' | |||
| -Attribute this argument to somebody, this should really be sourced if a significant minority holds it, or removed if it's just a couple people who believe this. As far as I see it, this is a logically flawed argument as theory claims that it is possible to diagnose ADHD at early ages, and in fact many are diagnosed before 7. This paragraph represents bias in favor of critics and skews the whole etiology section. | |||
| ''Critics have noted that the hypothesis "ADHD exists as an objective disorder" is unscientific, and point out that people generally assume that something is scientific just because it sounds scientific . A minority but vocal number of critics have stated that ADHD is not falsifiable and that ADHD is simply a list of symptoms. Yet, theories for the origin of ADHD behaviour were made as far back as 1902 by George Still. He believed these behaviours could be explained a "notion of defective volitional inhibition and moral regulation of behavior". Numerous theories from other researchers have been made since then with most current theories focusing on inhibition as the core deficit of ADHD.'' | |||
| ''These vocal critics also believe that even if a sharp objective difference is found between ADHD and non-ADHD groups, that this does not prove that the difference constitutes a pathology. They point out that behavior that is considered normal-variant like homosexuality or left-handedness, likely has a neurochemical or neuroanatomical basis as well. These criticisms fail to take into account that ADHD is not a disease but a disorder and that normal-variant behaviours such as homosexuality do not meet the main criteria of a disorder which is disfunction or distress of the individual.'' | |||
| -Using the phrase "vocal critics" is unecessary and undermines their message | |||
| -Second paragraph makes assertions without sourcing them, homosexuality causes distress to some people and there are ADHDers who believe in its special powers and refuse to be medicated. | |||
| ''Nor does a genetic basis for the characteristic of hyperactivity prove a biological basis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Particularly, the theory that DNA may contribute a probabilistic susceptibility to mental disorders, often assumed in medical literature, is unproved, and possibly unprovable. Psychological diagnoses may well fall into the category of unfounded cultural prejudices, along with racial classifications based on skin color, and religious hatred.'' | |||
| -You seriously need to source claims like this. If something is "often assumed in medical literature" then readers should be provided with sources of who makes the claim and why exactly it is supposed to be unproved. | |||
| Ok, I'm tired now. The other half of the article on alternative theories isn't too bad. But the first half looks like the aftermath of a battle between scientologists and ADHDers ending in the ADHDers losing interest and the scientologists going off to rant elsewhere. What we are left with is an article that contradicts itself in a number of places and strong bias in at least half the sections. I am posting this analysis to see if anyone agrees that I have correctly identified the biases. If we have some kind of consensus then this article should be edited and every unsourced statement taken out until a source is found. | |||
| == Source of Info/Commentary == | |||
| Some interesting thoughts of ADHD and the like can be found in this report from the Canadian Health Institutes ----> http://www.chsrf.ca/funding_opportunities/archive/devfunds/hidg/pdf/bibeau.pdf | |||
| May be worth a look, as there are some things that could be useful to this page. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 00:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| :Also, the is a good resource to reference. ] 20:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Falsifiability section, second paragraph == | |||
| "These controversial critics also believe that even if a sharp objective difference is found between ADHD and non-ADHD groups, that this does not prove that the difference constitutes a pathology. They point out that behavior that is considered normal-variant like homosexuality or left-handedness, likely has a neurochemical or neuroanatomical basis as well. Yet these criticisms fail to take into account that ADHD is not a disease but a disorder and that normal-variant behaviours such as homosexuality do not meet the main criteria of a disorder which is dysfunction or distress of the individual. They also confuse the difference between a disease and a disorder. No mainstream reasearcher has ever said that there is an agent or pathogen that causes ADHD." | |||
| Much of this is partially POV. I don't see it presenting any information that isn't purely factual (that is, all of its information seems factual and valid). However, it draws conclusions -- "these criticisms fail to...", "no mainstream researcher has ever..." -- which is something I believe should be left to the reader. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| ::An encyclopedia is not a factoid or collection of factoids. An encyclopedia also presents ideas. Having said that I can see changing the wording of the first quoted section. The section section doesn't draw conclusions it presents a fact. If you know of a mainstream researcher who believes that ADHD is caused by a pathogen and you can cite that, the whole sentence should be removed. --] 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I edited much of that paragraph myself, before even reading the talk page, as it was obviously madly POV, if anyone feels it now needs further adjustments to make it flow better feel free, but please don't replace what I scrapped without discussing it first. ] 04:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| --- | |||
| The main problem with this section is that large parts of it are non sequitur. In particular, these sentences do not bear on the question of falsifiability: | |||
| :"Yet, theories for the origin of ADHD behaviour were made as far back as 1902 by George Still. He believed these behaviours could be explained a 'notion of defective volitional inhibition and moral regulation of behavior'. Numerous theories from other researchers have been made since then with most current theories focusing on inhibition as the core deficit of ADHD. These critics have not addressed the history of the disorder nor have they addressed the numerous examples of theories of ADHD in any of their writings." | |||
| The history of ADD claims do not weigh pro or con in the controversy over falsifiability. The inclusion of these sentences appears to be an attempt at fairness. We should present evidence from a source that argues for the falsifiability of the ADD hypothesis --- NOT its historicity. | |||
| A secondary problem also exists. The article only state the conclusion of the falsifiability argument, not the argument itself. We should present it. | |||
| ] 14:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 4th Paragraph of Skepticism of Diagnosis == | |||
| "Also, much of the research about ADHD actually contradicts facts asserted by the mainstream psychiatric establishment. The brain scans that lead this article supposedly show the difference between an "ADHD" and "Normal" brain, yet Zametkin later admitted that differences in sampling led to any discovered differences in the 1990 study. There are massive ambigiutities still in the science and NIMH does not widely release their data for re-analysis by other researchers who may be critical of the concept of ADHD, which is exactly the opposite of the ideal scientific method." | |||
| This paragraph seems blatantly biased to me. All of the material is uncited and the last sentence in particular, although it technically contains only facts, makes it sound like someone has an axe to grind. I'm still not certain, but I'd like a second opinion on the matter as to whether it stays or goes. -- ] 13:04 EST, 21 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Update: On second thought, I decided to simply remove that paragraph. If anyone wants to make a case for keeping it, just say so. -- ] 21:42 EST, 21 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Scientology == | |||
| The scientology section seams like bs too me though I don't really know. Also all of it's sources appear to be a couple of websites that I don't nessacarylly trust as reputable. However I don't really know, So what do other people think about this.] 22:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| How so BS? The citations come from the Los Angeles times and anti-psych websites. Do yo mean to refute their own words?--] 01:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==flogging the Zametkin dead cat== | |||
| Seems like every few months there is an outbreak of Zametkin image bashing so I thought I would let others know that the issue has been delete with here->. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder/archive3#zametkin_issue --] 20:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Removed section== | |||
| I deleted the following section (labeled disease mongering in ADHD) because I see it as a POV statment without adequate sources: | |||
| <blockquote> Also medical doctors who accept that ADHD is a valid diagnosis (most do) are concerned because of the organised penetration of the pharmaceutical industry, especially by certain large pharmaceutical companies, into patient groups, parent groups (they are influential), and into schools and other education domains. These companies seem to deliberately influence which information and data are available to patients, parents, teachers and doctors. This phenomenon is called disease mongering. Although there is no hard evidence yet that deliberate disease mongering is planned in advance and then executed by certain large pharmaceutical companies (not all), unfortunately this seems likely, and the aim of disease mongering seems to be that many more "patients" are diagnosed with a certain disorder than would be the case in a neutral, caring, critical and up-to-date modern clinic. For example: If a pharmaceutical company could make an ADHD parent group its firm ally by telling them what they want to hear (1. the group will get generous funding; 2. parents of ADHD children are already doing all they can for their children, there is really nothing they can do more, the children just need better medication; 3. in reality, many other problematic children also have ADHD, these poor other children first need to be diagnosed properly with ADHD and then also need better medication), it could use the parent group's influence for its purposes. Hence, many more "patients" would be diagnosed with ADHD; these children would be prescribed the company's medicinal drug for ADHD. The market for this medicinal drug would become much larger than it would be without disease mongering. For further information on disease mongering, see the discussion on this topic at the "Public Library of Science": http://collections.plos.org/plosmedicine/diseasemongering-2006.php</blockquote> | |||
| <blockquote>Disease mongering in ADHD seems to be a real concern, i.e. ADHD probably is diagnosed much more often in everyday medical practice than would be justified by best available medical knowledge.<ref>Phillips CB. Medicine goes to school: teachers as sickness brokers for ADHD. PLoS Med. 2006 Apr;3(4):e182.</ref></blockquote>. | |||
| What do other editors think? <font color="Green">]</font><sup>]</sup> 21:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| You asked what others think. I think the edit by removing the entire paragraph is very heavy-handed. This is a key issue, since over-prognosis can be a serious issue (or even THE issue) even if ADHD exists. It seems odd for the article not to be allowed to flesh out this concern, even if not endorsing it. The para explicitly says there is currently no "hard evidence" for disease mongering by pharma companies. Yet it is "likely" - because of all the money there is to be made from selling e.g. ritalin. Would anyone seriously dispute that there are incentives to disease-monger and that pharma companies are responsive to incentives? Any corporation has legal duties to maximise shareholder value. A friend of mine working for a pharma company told me off the record that they "create illnesses; it's great for business." But of course this is "only an anecdote." One could redress the perceived imbalance simply by adding the clause "It might be argued that it is likely ...." I am minded to change the para back with this amendment. | |||
| == Temper == | |||
| In Finlandia or among finns or estonians all roma (african, arab, turk, jewish) children would look ADHD ] 10:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Is it just me, or is categorizing african, arabic, turkish and jewish people as romani ridiculously racist to all parties, and is phrased like a Yakov Smirnoff joke: "In Finlandia, Roma annoy YOU". Interminable cretin... <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) {{{Time|21:24, August 20, 2007 (UTC)}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == This article is very biased towards the psychiatric viewpoint. == | |||
| The vibe I get from this whole thing is that the controversy is unfounded, while the medical viewpoint is completely substantiated. It needs to be edited to portray the views of those who oppose the system, and why exactly they do so. Contrary to popular belief, 'medical research' with twin studies and genomes is far from unopposed and has alternate explanations. It's absolutely fair to post 'evidence' supporting the views of the psychiatric establishment as long as the views of those who criticize the establishment are also written in the same amount of detail and with their full arguments. When you write mountains about a pro-psychiatric viewpoint, and very little about the opposition's answers to these claims, you inevitably cannot write a neutral article. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Your vibe may be subjective. If you believe that the controversy needs to be beefed up to create balance, go ahead. On the other hand, this doesn't mean that you can delete or alter material to create the balance you desire. Your edits have been undone. Please use the talk pages before deleting further material.--] 15:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, it's quite clear that the arguments 'controversy about ADHD' are clearly designed to favor the psychiatric viewpoint by citing unopposed 'medical research studies' and not citing the responses of critics that have equally valid viewpoints. When you cut one side off and make it seem like so called 'research' is unanswered, you create a biased viewpoint in which the reader assumes that the opposition has no valid argument. Criticisms of the methodology of these 'studies' does exist, and the association between Scientology and anti-psychiatry is not well founded. Just because many Scientologists also dispute the claims is not evidence for a real association, and this needs to be noted because such an association is commonly used to discredit critics. Here is just one example: | |||
| http://youtube.com/watch?v=kOW8LNU2hFE&mode=related&search= | |||
| I think it's fair to reference to ] because this is probably one of the most publicized works that debunks psychiatric theory that 'genetic resemblances' between psychiatric patients with similar disorders actually have valid implications in said disorders. What also is important is that it debunks the assumptions that social factors are not responsible for these differences. | |||
| I am not editing the page to my 'liking'. I am editing the page to present a viewpoint less biased in favor of one perspectives. In an article about controversy, it is only fair to give the opposition's response to the establishment's supposed 'debunking'. Criticism of the supposed 'evidence' that ADHD has genetic components needs to be shown as it give the reader more of an opportunity to examine both sides of the argument. Again, just because something is technically defined as 'medical' does not mean that it has more credibility than other sources if the whole nature of the issue is very subjective. You need to use words like 'claims', 'hypotheses' and 'assumptions' rather than 'evidence' because it is VERY CLEAR that these psychiatric viewpoints are entirely subjective and not based on strong evidence. Viewpoints also need to be owned. You cannot have "evidence states...etc" unless there is a physical disorder that has a proven, direct pathology. | |||
| :When you speak of being "cut off" the most recent behaviour of deleting and altering of reliably cited material comes from you. | |||
| :Post away as much as you want. If you want to put in material that is fringe material it can be done. Qualify it though. i.e....''Antipsychiatrist critic Dr. Fred Baughman has created much controversy by making unsupported claims that Ritalin causes brain damage.'' We can reliably cite that he: is a antipsychiatrist critic, he creates controversy, his claim is unsupported by majority or minority viewpoints, and that he made this claim. Once that is established his beliefs can be stated ad nauseum. | |||
| :The word "debunking" is word that scientologists and antipsychs love to use because it sounds so darn good. Yet, it is not a word used at all in science. One study does not "debunk" the other study or a series of studies. One book does not "debunk" a wide body of evidence. At best the book or study adds new information to the field and that is about it. It doesn't flop science on it's head. I also strongly disagree with this statement of yours; ''"because it is VERY CLEAR that these psychiatric viewpoints are entirely subjective and not based on strong evidence".'' Not that my opinion matters that much on Misplaced Pages. The conventions of Misplaced Pages require good reliable secondary sources such as the NYT support such an assertion. I doubt you will find such a reliable secondary source. | |||
| :Studies are "evidence" and the word is totally appropriate in the passage, especially since there is a body of evidence which supports this idea....all of which can be supported by reliable secondary sources. | |||
| :...and finally, "pathology" is also a red herring used often by antipsychs/ scientology. Disorders are not conditions that progressively deteriorate because of a pathogen. That is called a disease. Adhd is a chronic and persistent condition, a disorder in functioning...hence the term..."disorder". | |||
| :Now instead of all this bickering can we get back to the business of the talk page? How do you suggest that a particular section be improved? and do you have good secondary sources for any addition, deletion, or alteration of material? I'm all ears.--] 03:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == No, I'm not just going to submit to your viewpoint. == | |||
| " | |||
| When you speak of being "cut off" the most recent behaviour of deleting and altering of reliably cited material comes from you. " | |||
| Actually, no, I am not. I have deleted exaggerated claims of 'proof' that do not have the sufficient evidence to be cited at all. What has been cited are OPINIONS, which are refutable and should be treated as such. | |||
| "Qualify it though. i.e....Antipsychiatrist critic Dr. Fred Baughman has created much controversy by making unsupported claims that Ritalin causes brain damage. We can reliably cite that he: is a antipsychiatrist critic, he creates controversy, his claim is unsupported by majority or minority viewpoints, and that he made this claim. Once that is established his beliefs can be stated ad nauseum." | |||
| It doesn't matter at all if his views are supported by the majority. When you say 'unsupported', you imply that his views are inferior to the majority of views. How valid ones' views is not determined by the palatability to the majority view; in this case, the heliocentric theory would have been stated as: | |||
| "Anti-church critic Nicolaus Copernicus has created much controversy by making unsupported claims that the Earth revolves around the sun" | |||
| What you should say is: | |||
| His views are not supported by the majority of practicing psychiatrists. | |||
| There you have it. An unbiased, factual way to cite it, instead of something implying that he has no idea what he's talking about, since 'unsupported' can also mean 'without evidence'. | |||
| " The word "debunking" is word that scientologists and antipsychs love to use because it sounds so darn good. Yet, it is not a word used at all in science. " Because from this viewpoint, psychiatry isn't science at all. It's a word used to attempt to expose something fraudulent for what it is. And, this viewpoint is well supported. There still has been no way to objectively determine whether someone has a mental disorder | |||
| "One book does not "debunk" a wide body of evidence. At best the book or study adds new information to the field and that is about it. It doesn't flop science on it's head." No, you're right, it doesn't, especially with the inertia that is exhibited in all monolithic societies. But what it does is that it gives a different slant on all this so called 'evidence' that could flop it on its head if such a path is pursued further. In essence, it gives an alternate explanation to all these studies which should be well noted. And it's not just the book itself, its a view, a logic, etc. If there is an alternate theory to why the studies turn out the way they do, why not document it, as long as it follows reasonable logic and examines both sides of the story? The alternate theories of social factors in twin studies do in fact make logical sense given the subtle differences in relationships in different situation, and the fact that we basically don't understand the brain much at all. Now, I agree that this shouldn't be touted as 'hard evidence', but neither should the psychiatric view, because it's not based on HARD FACT. And, there are other arguments against so called 'studies'; I will give one other. The problem is that in modern psychiatric practice, opposing views are not given nearly the same credit as those who follow the status quo, hence disproportionate representation. And um...there have been times in history when 'well supported science' such as ] has been overthrown outright. It might have taken some time, but this wasn't because such was incorrect, it was because it was unpalatable with the majority. You could argue that modern scientific method prevents this, but it cannot be used to accurately measure or determine such subjective aspects of life. | |||
| "I also strongly disagree with this statement of yours; "because it is VERY CLEAR that these psychiatric viewpoints are entirely subjective and not based on strong evidence"." But it is. They are observed behaviors by a highly subjective viewpoint that some attempt to turn into objective data. You simply cannot HAVE real, valid medical evidence as to causes either way on something so subjective (at least at our level of understanding), but only make subjective arguments as to the causes and treatments. This is where the whole 'medical view' fails; we are not advanced enough to understand much about the brain or accurately test complex behaviors (partly due to pharmaceutical influence) to get an objective result. When one section later states that psychiatrists don't know what leads to ADHD, but earlier 'evidence' is given for genetic factors, this is contradictory. | |||
| " Studies are "evidence" and the word is totally appropriate in the passage, especially since there is a body of evidence which supports this idea....all of which can be supported by reliable secondary sources. " | |||
| Wrong, because behavioral studies often with pharmaceutical tainting and subjective interpretation by individuals who have been taught to view behavioral 'flaws' a certain way are incredibly biased and subjective in nature. And, it doesn't matter if I cannot find a direct, mainstream source to supposedly 'lend credibility' to what I am saying; just because something is not commonly accepted again does not compromise the validity of it. Also, if something is commonly accepted, it does not mean it is automatically valid. Also, mainstream media organizations and publications are owned by companies who would not likely allow opposing viewpoints on an issue that would cost them millions of dollars if they were put forward. | |||
| " ...and finally, "pathology" is also a red herring used often by antipsychs/ scientology. Disorders are not conditions that progressively deteriorate because of a pathogen. That is called a disease. Adhd is a chronic and persistent condition, a disorder in functioning...hence the term..."disorder". " | |||
| Not a red herring. Actually, many psychiatrists refer to mental 'disorders' as diseases, and even if they call them disorders, they often act like they are physical conditions. These are almost always caused by some kind of physical mechanism, pathological or not. Hence, comparisons between schizophrenia and diabetes which are completely unfounded. | |||
| "Now instead of all this bickering can we get back to the business of the talk page? How do you suggest that a particular section be improved? and do you have good secondary sources for any addition, deletion, or alteration of material? I'm all ears" | |||
| Sure. | |||
| Disorder mongering: | |||
| "It commonly refers to the explosion of ADHD diagnoses, the subjectivity of the matter, and environmental and psychological factors which have been said to play a role in or possibly cause ADHD. Some aspects of behavior do point to this, one being that children with ADHD can commonly concentrate on fun activities such as playing video games for hours on end. They argue that because the perspective of many psychiatrists is limited to the status quo that they are incapable of noticing more looming factors." | |||
| http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/17/ADHD_interview.html | |||
| Etiology of syndrome: | |||
| However, some have questioned whether these vague similarities between genes may simply point to other passive factors that while are technically valid have no direct implication in the disorder. Some would include intelligence and extroversion, both which commonly make functioning within a strict set of rules or in a classroom environment noticeably more difficult for many. | |||
| The section about the contradictory claims that the brain is physically different is good, but the section above would connect the two much better; i.e. giving a more direct explanation for these 'genetic similarities'. | |||
| Genetic basis of hyperactivity: | |||
| "However, some critics allege that patterns in the family, or even in twin studies do not necessarily suggest valid genetic implications in ADHD, even if some basic personality traits are heritable. This would relate to family dynamics and differing relationships between identical twins and fraternal twins." | |||
| www.faculty.umb.edu/peter_taylor/99b.doc | |||
| (includes important outline of scientific criticism of methodology of so called 'genetic studies) | |||
| "However, some critics point out that correlation does not directly imply causation, and that although some similarities may exist, these may not cause ADHD. Some even assert that those with ADHD simply are reacting to a poor environment, but have a more extroverted and rebellious personality style which makes acceptance difficult. See ]" | |||
| Any more questions? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==simply follow Misplaced Pages guidelines== | |||
| ] | |||
| ''NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority. | |||
| ''We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. '''Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.''' To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.'' | |||
| ''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.'' | |||
| '' '''Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.''' '' | |||
| *'' If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;'' | |||
| *'' If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;'' | |||
| *'' If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.'' | |||
| ---- | |||
| ---- | |||
| Misplaced Pages is not the place to argue what is the "truth" with regards to a topic. If that's what you desire start a blog or go to ADD forums. What matters to Misplaced Pages is what society thinks(majority and also minority viewpoints) and good secondary and reliable citations....and that is about it. It's pointless to discuss your viewpoints because they fall outside of these parameters and I'f wasted enough of my life in these circular debates. | |||
| ---- | |||
| ---- | |||
| ] | |||
| ''This page offers guidance on establishing which non-mainstream "theories" should have articles in Misplaced Pages, and to an extent how those articles should approach their subjects. We use the word theory in a very broad sense, including conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the "theories" addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.'' | |||
| ''We propose these guidelines in the belief that an appearance on Misplaced Pages should not make something more notable than it actually is. '''Since Misplaced Pages self-identifies primarily with mainstream opinion, and because other mainstream sources often view our project as a contender for mainstream status, it is important that Misplaced Pages itself not become the notability-validating source for these non-mainstream theories.''' If another, adequately well-known source discusses the theory first, Misplaced Pages is no longer the primary witness to notability. '''Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a subject in a neutral manner if the subject completely lacks mainstream discussion.''' If all available sources are not neutral but instead put forward a point of view, an article on the subject may risk violating the No original research policy.'' | |||
| '''Mainstream here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications.''' This should be understood in a commonsense sociological way and not as an attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", which may well be impossible. We leave the finer distinctions to the philosophers (see demarcation problem). '''Fortunately, the authors of non-mainstream theories often explicitly proclaim their non-mainstream status in one form or another (for example, by arguing that they are ignored because of some great conspiracy, because other practitioners aren't ready to accept their truths, or other similar arguments).''''' | |||
| ---- | |||
| "Disorder mongering" falls into fringe viewpoint. Whatever you post on the article be considerate of the majority viewpoint and do not try subvert that viewpoint with a fringe viewpoint. Happy editing. | |||
| ---- | |||
| --] 20:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Then we've come to an agreement. == | |||
| That the Misplaced Pages guidelines are garbage, and serve to simply provide the view of the ignorant majority rather than factual evidence. Some authors proclaim that their theories have not been mainstreamed in the way that was explained simply because it's absolutely true. Just remember that whatever is on here has nothing to do with what is closer to the truth, because you sure seem to act like it. Whatever, enjoy your faux-urbandictionary style propaganda. At the very least, it should be stated on the top of the page that this reflects the OPINION of the majority rather than being based on 'objective evidence'. | |||
| Personally, I think it's important to inform the majority of what has a more logical basis, regardless of how 'fringe' it is. But I guess following the guidelines is more important than that. | |||
| ==Picture== | |||
| That picture is useless unless someone labels/indicates which scan is which ie ADHD is on the left or right. | |||
| It maybe be possible to guess which is which but we're running a encyclopedia here!(BTW: this came to my attention because I don't know which is which)] 13:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree about the photo. Unless someone can edit the caption (and reference it) to illustrate which image is which, there's no smart way to "guess." --] 22:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Heredity and ADHD == | |||
| I welcome the avid debate about "ADHD" and neurodiversity. I was lucky to grow up while ADHD was largely "unrecognized". I didn't have to ingest Ritalin, and although I had all the traits that are consistent with "ADHD", I was not labeled as such. In a way, I thrived. As is typical of people like myself, who often think outside the box, and who have the ability to exercise holistic penetration of an issue, I would like to register my viewpoint on this topic. Plainly and simply, ADHD is highly hereditable, and is correlated with certain abilities to enhance civilization and science in particular. To all of you psycho-babble and psycho-chatter miscreants who would exterminate if not interfere with our kind, I offer you only one piece of magnificent evidence which is usually obvious and acceptable to those of us fortunate enough to have the "ADHD" gift: ''''''There are too many of us for natural selection to keep around if we didn't have wonderful things to offer to man's survival'''''' You know where you intolerant ] 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)dime-a-dozen conformists can go!!!! Back to your caves... ] 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| A circular argument true to your ADHD nature. ;) | |||
| I have a form of unrecognized ADHD but ADHD none the less. I am on the flip side of your coin. I believe the psycho-babble is necessary to eliminate the biased inducing tone that some engage in. I'm glad that we can both exist on the same page.--] 02:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == On another note.... == | |||
| I've decided that I don't give a shit about scuro taking advantage of the system. In the middle ages, witch burning was considered acceptable by the majority, but that does not make it any less wrong. Long ago, people believed in alchemy, which was untrue as well. Whether or not information is supported by the majority of experts should not be relevant to its place on wikipedia. What is needed is objective, factual information. Whether or not most scientists or people support or do not support it, or whether it is a 'fringe' view is completely irrelevant. Galileo was considered a 'fringe' scientist in his time, but we owe it to ourselves to do better than a metaphorical lynch mob angry because the majority belief has been challenged. I'll be back soon to perform some major edits on this page, though I am pleased that some minor ones have already been accepted. | |||
| Misplaced Pages should serve as an objective informational tool, not one to avoid sparking controversy wherever possible in order to keep things quiet. Sometimes the truth hurts pretty badly. We are not trying to keep the masses placated here, we are trying to present fair and balanced (no reference to faux news intended here) view of the subject from both scientific and social standpoints. I do not spend all my time on wikipedia unlike a few users on here, but look at yourselves; does being on more frequently make you more right and more eligible to edit? No, it doesn't. One CAN debunk a huge body of 'evidence' if it can be adequately shown that the evidence was gathered in a flawed and biased way. The same thing happened with the heliocentric view, and the equivalent of pro-biopsychiatry advocates of the day threw a tantrum. I would expect better. ] 13:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Using foul language doesn't make you more compelling. It turns other editors off. I agree with you that talk postings generally shouldn't be removed. Having said that, abusive language directed at editors would be a cause for removing text. I just think it should be done following proper wikipedian procedure. So be warmed SC, your behaviour is not acceptable, please change your behaviour. | |||
| ::Now to the business at hand. All talk should be about improving the article. Focus on this and not on editors and judgmental rants. I would start reading on how wikipedia works and then work within that system. Try here ]. --] 16:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::We don't support ] so we are reporting based on majority expert opinions. Notable criticism (via notoriety) and significant minority views can have some mention too (mentioned as minority views), but it is not our job to determine the "correct" answers and truth. ''']''' 19:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == WikiProject class rating== | |||
| This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. ] 16:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Doesn't make a difference. == | |||
| I simply cursed because I'm tired of your stupid tactics, not particularly to be more compelling. I've seen you all over other forums employing the same 'majority rules' tactic in order to force others away, instead of presenting an objective, factual truth. My cursing was not excessive, and I'm afraid it's not up to you to make judgments on my behavior as yours has been hardly rosy around here. So be warned scuro, your "behaviour" is not acceptable, please change your behavior. | |||
| Only the first two sentences did I focus on another editor because I needed to reverse my older decision. And my later part was not a 'rant'; I was simply pointing out as to why going with a 'majority opinion' is nothing short of tyranny. I understand how wikipedia 'works', and I also understand that you are using technicalities to force your OPINION on other people without hard fact. I really don't care how 'fringe' a viewpoint is as long as it logically makes sense and can be substantiated at least as much as the other viewpoint (by quality, not by quantity). Both sides of the story need to be presented no matter what, or else you (and other editors that demand a majority viewpoint) are committing the same wrongs that the Catholic Church did to Gallileo. You could say that our scientific method has advanced (true), but psychiatry has largely skirted a scientific method. | |||
| I'm really not going to fall for your smug tactic that seems to suggest that I have no idea what I am doing, and that I need to learn what is going on. I have every idea what I am doing, and I wish to provide an unbiased, factual nature to this article rather than what simply is the majority viewpoint. If most experts believe something, you say: "blah blah blah, most experts support this view...however, there is no scientific evidence to substantiate that this is to be the truth". 'Weasel words' can certainly go in favor of the establishment, as well. Saying that biased views have to be presented because the majority of experts believe such a thing isn't a very good point to try to make. | |||
| So, yes, I will be performing a major overhaul of this article within several days, with adequate backing. | |||
| ] 18:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Feel free to report my behaviour if you find it offensive. Glad that you also have spent sometime researching. Now if you can move on from researching my editing habits and look for reliable resources for your "truths", Misplaced Pages will be the better place. Good luck.--] 07:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I never said I was going to report your behavior, nor am I interested in doing so. I only stated what I did because your passive aggressiveness is really irritating, especially this nonsense that you practice in deliberately trying to demean people so that you appear to have the higher ground. You kept saying that whoever is 'right' is not relevant here, except that it is, because you are using the guidelines to enforce something you believe to be true. I'm not interested in 'researching' your editing habits, just making an observation that if you had an opposing viewpoint to something highly controversial and it was considered 'fringe', you probably wouldn't be obsessed with the guidelines so much. It was interesting that when I brought up some good points, you simply copy pasted the guidelines. I just typed up a huge response to the other article, but it's three in the morning, and thus I will be working on it soon. | |||
| ] 07:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Once again your post is full of personal judgments. ] I have taken the first step and posted a warning on your talk page. | |||
| :::Staying up till 3 am writing rebuttals of a personal nature might be a sign for you that it is time to step away from the computer for a bit. I imagine every editor at one point, myself included, has gotten too emotionally involved in a subject. Misplaced Pages has stated as much, and recommends a computer holiday from time to time. ( ] ). Hopefully after some rumination we can put this behind us and focus on the task at hand which is to work together to improve this article. --] 12:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC) It's not up to you to post warnings on my page. I'm not too emotionally involved nor am I actually on wikipedia that often (and I have a different sleeping schedule than you). Again, I find it funny that you're accusing me of this while you subtly throw barbs in my direction. Once again, your post is full of personal judgments, please stop using the guidelines to cover your tracks. | |||
| -- ] (]) 17:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Suggested edits. == | |||
| Now, if we could stop the underhanded comments: | |||
| Disorder mongering: | |||
| "It commonly refers to the explosion of ADHD diagnoses, the subjectivity of the matter, and environmental and psychological factors which have been said to play a role in or possibly cause ADHD. Some aspects of behavior do point to this, one being that children with ADHD can commonly concentrate on fun activities such as playing video games for hours on end. They argue that because the perspective of many psychiatrists is limited to the status quo that they are incapable of noticing more looming factors." | |||
| http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/17/ADHD_interview.html | |||
| Etiology of syndrome: | |||
| However, some have questioned whether these vague similarities between genes may simply point to other passive factors that while are technically valid have no direct implication in the disorder. Some would include intelligence and extroversion, both which commonly make functioning within a strict set of rules or in a classroom environment noticeably more difficult for many. | |||
| The section about the contradictory claims that the brain is physically different is good, but the section above would connect the two much better; i.e. giving a more direct explanation for these 'genetic similarities'. | |||
| Genetic basis of hyperactivity: | |||
| "However, some critics allege that patterns in the family, or even in twin studies do not necessarily suggest valid genetic implications in ADHD, even if some basic personality traits are heritable. This would relate to family dynamics and differing relationships between identical twins and fraternal twins." | |||
| www.faculty.umb.edu/peter_taylor/99b.doc | |||
| (includes important outline of scientific criticism of methodology of so called 'genetic studies) | |||
| "However, some critics point out that correlation does not directly imply causation, and that although some similarities may exist, these may not cause ADHD. Some even assert that those with ADHD simply are reacting to a poor environment, but have a more extroverted and rebellious personality style which makes acceptance difficult. See ]" | |||
| It is important not to jump to conclusions just because most experts tend to do so. While some of psychiatry's points have a shred of technical validity, they certainly are not valid in the sense they are touted in. | |||
| Once again: I don't CARE if some of these are 'fringe' viewpoints in your opinion. What matters here is to post a logically significant viewpoint. You ignored my point about the guidelines before, so I'm going to ignore your diatribes about following the guidelines. If there was a wikipedia in the 16th century, would Gallileo be simply an 'anti-church critic" and only worthy of a 'fringe viewpoint'? I have no doubt that some people WANT 'fringe' viewpoints to remain 'fringe' regardless of how valid they are, but I also would like to see that we've matured a bit as a community from the 16th century until now. | |||
| ::Forget Gallileo, Einstein himself would be fringe on Misplaced Pages before he published e=mc2...and even after he published because he was unknown at the time. | |||
| ::''"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas"'' ] | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages is not the place to alert the world to the "truth"!!!! If you want the truth to get out start a blog. In a nutshell your suggested edits would either be Fringe, OR, or lack credible citations.--] (]) 13:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Like I said, these theories have often been published on a lower scale, just not in mainstream psychiatry. Being in the mainstream has nothing to do with truth. And also, denying Einstein his place on wikipedia because someone would consider his views 'fringe' would be retarded. Moreover, those are actual physical, scientific theories, as opposed to psychiatric dogma. Though dogmatic, even previous scientific views were not entire house of cards. So there's a big difference there. | |||
| Like I said, you seem to want to argue against what I say for awhile, but then after you can't make an argument, you resort to saying "fringe....FRINGE!" Poor tactic, tbh. If it can be logically reasoned that biological psychiatry rests on a house of cards, it is use that viewpoint. | |||
| ] (]) 17:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Read what I write, you ask a hypothetical question and I answered it. If Misplaced Pages existed in Einstein's time, and he had originally posted E=MC2 on Misplaced Pages, it would be removed because it couldn't be cited to a reliable source. It would have also been considered OR. He was unknown at that point, even in the scientific community. Same could happen now. There may be a genius who attempts to post cutting edge information, and it will be removed. That is because it wouldn't yet be recognized as minority opinion. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a place to publish original research. | |||
| ::I'm going to bow out of this discussion, it's failing to advance the article and I am not at all encouraged with SC now interpreting "the hidden actions" behind what is posted.--] (]) 20:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Go ahead and bow out. == | |||
| Kindly read what I wrote. I partially disagreed with the idea that he should have been excluded, and your analogy was poor, because it applies to something physical and tenable rather than something gray open to social bias. It's like saying that the anti-psychiatry positions are wrong because there are some flaws in physical medicine. | |||
| Honestly, I don't care if you're going to bow out. But please refrain from reverting my edits and screwing with this page as long as you're not willing to discuss anything. | |||
| ] (]) 20:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Should this page be deleted?== | |||
| There is no real controversy with ADHD. There are some things not known, and some things that can't be measured well yet but that in itself is not controversial. Much is known about treatments and this is a disorder where drug treatments have been clinically shown to be more effective and cause less side effects then for any other illness. It is the most widely studied childhood disorder and has been accepted by every national health unit in the USA and probably the world. | |||
| If you merged the good citable material from this page onto the adhd page, you would be left with fringe opinions and minority opinions that are becoming less and less accepted as we learn more. A good editor would take a hatchet to the article, cut away most, and move the rest to the ADHD, Anti-psych, or DSM article. Then they would remove the hollowed out carcass.--] (]) 03:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, there are controversies, that's a fact. How notable they are is another matter, but they are notable enough that I could pull a few off the top of my head. This article was created as a subpage for the ADHD page, and, as such, it would be better for it to be named ] because it then gets indexed with the ADHD article. It is properly referenced from the latter, and controversies pages properly keep controversy from cluttering up the main page. Improperly, they become POV forks, which is not allowed. Both articles -- all articles -- must be NPOV. However, on a Controversies article, my opinion is that sourcing requirements shift a *little*. What is asserted on Controversies pages, is the existence of *arguments*, which should properly be attributed or reliably sourced if expressing some broad consensus in the field, plus what can be reliably (verifiably) stated with reference to facts, in detail, so that readers may come to their own conclusions. This cannot be imbalanced, i.e., only facts supporting one view or another. It can be very useful. There are currently, in my view, some problems with the main article, but those properly will be dealt with there. The controversy, to the extent that it is notable, *should* be covered there, but briefly, and what goes in the brief mention can be sometimes problematic. It must be NPOV, which does mean balanced, and not leading the reader to conclude anything about the controversy that cannot be directly verified from reliable source. --] (]) 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| --] (]) 13:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Just thought I would drop by to see the reaction to last night's Frontline on the chaos in psychiatric medication in children. (the program can be viewed on line) Apparently there has been no reaction here. Quite interesting that one of the "experts" Dr. Biederman, from Harvard who I have made a special point of citing as a drug company man, they pointed out is no longer willing to talk to the media. Quite interesting also that Scuro is getting more and more aggressive ("there is no real controversy") precisely as the media and public are waking up to an era which will be a stain on my profession's history. My article,which Scuro has repeatedly referred to as part of the "antipsychiatry camp" (It isn't) will be coming out this summer in England as part of a book "Rethinking ADHD, An International Perspective" Palgrave-McMillan Ed. Sam Timini. Scuro what can I say? You may rule here and you may be able to control content through your persistence, but truth has a funny way of emerging despite the thought police that try to control it. | |||
Latest revision as of 10:57, 10 July 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
 | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
 |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
|
Merge from Social construct theory of ADHD
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- There was strong consensus in favor of merging Social construct theory of ADHD into Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
A majority of the content on Social construct theory of ADHD could sit comfortably within the main body of this Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies, with the subsection "Questioning the pathophysiological and genetic basis of ADHD" better fitting 'ADHD as a biological difference' in particular. (See: WP:OVERLAP) Previously, the content of the subsection below the link to the page in question was one misinterpretation of a scientific paper and another unsourced reference to the beliefs of Thomas Szasz. If those particular beliefs are to be included in the transfer I believe it would be best to point out how they have been constested. It might also be useful to include the perhaps outdated beliefs of the late Dr. Richard Saul, which in summary are that symptoms of ADHD are in actuality the result of other psychological issues making treatment via stimulants detrimental, in the merge between the two sections. His concerns function well as a bridge between questioning ADHD's biology and issues surrounding its social construct, and might give more context for the importance of how physiological differences in ADHD patients help establish it as a unique disorder. For a non-opinion source, Dr. Saul has written a book with the same provocative title as the article. I have never merged a page and, due to the subject's complexity, feel it would be best left to someone more experienced. Thank you! — VariousDeliciousCheeses (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Basically I think that the theory should just be a section in this article rather than a single standalone piece. @VariousDeliciousCheeses (great name by the way) wait a month or two and then if there is consensus give the merge a go yourself. I'm happy if you want to ping me to check if our afterwards if you need any help. Cheers Tom (LT) (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have complicated opinions on this one. This article has an incredible degree of overlap with other ADHD articles, and while it has notability, it . So I agree that it should be merged somewhere. The problem is, I despise the controversy article. I think it's a major WP:UNDUE hazard because the list-ish nature of it makes it hard to assess what's due, and the word "controversy" is kinda just bait for POV. The name also implies that ADHD is controversial - and it is - but "the facts" are also very established scientifically. The controversy is all cultural/societal stuff (this will come back later). So I don't love the idea of putting more stuff into that article.
- I do also have an issue with classifying the social construct theory purely as a "controversy" - yes, most of it is controversial, but some parts overlap with genuinely important points, for example, the social model of disability is a major theory, and it does apply to impairments that arise from ADHD. Both articles also would fit far better into the "Society and culture" section from MOS:MED's disorder article sections (described as, "This might include social perceptions, cultural history, stigma, economics, religious aspects, awareness, legal issues, and notable cases" and is distinct from history, described as "Early discoveries, historical figures, and outdated treatments").
- So, here's my actual take on this: merge both into a new article. A new society and culture page (probably something like Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in society and culture) is created; most of the information in controversy and the entirety of the social construct article go there. A society and culture section is created on the main ADHD article; that replaces the controversy section and part of the society section that's under "Causes". This removes the POV temptation that is the controversies article, allows for a less fragmented coverage of societal issues, and reduces the ridiculous number of overlapping articles we have.
- Also, I'm happy to help with whatever merging is needed :) (please ping me if you respond, I'm pretty bad at checking back on things) --Xurizuri (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support merge both into a new, broader article on ADHD in society and culture. Cffisac (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support merge - controversies article itself should be restructured and renamed at some point but I think this first step is straightforward Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support merge. It smells like a POV-fork. The controversy article has problems, but adding this content into that article would help. I would support a later merge/renaming of the controversy article to ADHD in society and culture. — Shibbolethink 15:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Is it worth suggesting changes atm?
I came across this article recently and noticed a few things I thought could be worth querying here (e.g. things that sound a bit misleading, things that maybe don't belong ++). However, seeing the discussion on whether to change the whole page to ADHD in society and culture, is it even worth me bringing anything up now, or is it all going to be overhauled anyway?
FWIW I think the proposal to rename is a good idea. A title like "ADHD controversies" does sound a bit "spicy" somehow, in comparison to "ADHD in society and culture". To me the word "controversy" kind of sparks an "ooh what's the dirt" reaction. E.g. imagine an article titled, idk, "Epilepsy controversies" - if you weren't aware of any, there is probably now curiosity to know what they are, or at least confusion over why such an article exists. This is an international platform and you can't *assume* anyone who reads it is already even vaguely aware of ADHD controversy, so an article title like this sort of "legitimises" it further. (Just to clarify, I'm not disagreeing that controversy should be covered.) That's my take at least, hope it makes sense.
Just for transparency: I am a Misplaced Pages editing newbie, and I'm diagnosed with ADHD. RapturousRatling (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- RapturousRatling, suggestions are always welcome! Feel free to make changes as well, but be warned that there's a lot of wikipedia rules that aren't always intuitive, so someone might undo the change. If that happens, just take a breath, read anything that they link to, and ask for clarification on the talk page here if it's still unclear. If you would prefer to stick to the talk page for a while, that's also completely fine.For a bit of context on how renaming/"moving" works, the content of the article remains, the title is changed, and then people edit it to fit the new title if needed. Because it would still be a very similar article, just with a modified tone, a lot of suggestions would still be relevant. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Xurizuri: OK cool. I think I’ll stick to the talk page for now! Will try get around to posting a list here soon. RapturousRatling (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: English 202A Writing in the Social Sciences
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CJG6268 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Openskies789, Hjk5385.
— Assignment last updated by Openskies789 (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Biased intro
“Despite the scientifically well-established nature of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder(ADHD), its diagnosis, and its treatment, each of these has been controversial since the 1970s.”
This phrase is framing the controversies as if they are not mainstream, unsupported, contrary to factual evidence from the beginning. It is clear that something can be both “well-established” scientifically and still be highly controversial, so “despite” is misplaced in this sentence. Serious issues with the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD fit within the category of “well-established,” being recognized both by the scientific literature and by professional psychiatrists.
The article would be improved if it showed clearly that controversy surrounding ADHD is based on valid evidence and on the principles of science. 2604:3D09:A17E:8800:C4FD:902D:5780:348E (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- The article will not be changed just based on your opinion that there is such
valid evidence
. You need WP:RS for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: ANTH 193 - Behavioral Science in Practice
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 10 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CEJ493, Katherinealmonte, Nicole.Tirado, Uzma.siraj, Uzmasiraj0313, TaiAve93 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Dkhora (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Categories:- C-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- C-Class neurology articles
- Unknown-importance neurology articles
- Neurology task force articles
- C-Class psychiatry articles
- Unknown-importance psychiatry articles
- Psychiatry task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- C-Class Alternative medicine articles
- C-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class Disability articles
- WikiProject Disability articles
- C-Class Autism articles
- Unknown-importance Autism articles
- WikiProject Autism articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics