Article Improvement

Just joined Wikipedia because of the appalling quality of the main ADHD article. This page should not even exist. Should be flagged for deletion immediately and if (BIG IF) any of this is worth mentioning, fold it into the main article. Saying that ADHD might not exist is on par with claiming that vaccines might cause autism. Citations are ancient and often misconstrued. I came here looking FOR the links to recent studies so no: I do not have the cites but some of this can be deleted outright. The line citing Snopes isn't even an accurate representation of the contents of the article. FlintHoldsFire (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


If I can direct you two to the article, I've added two references covering the fringe theories involved in the causation of ADHD. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the two books on google using keyword fringe, no results found.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference does not say theories are fringe, says social critics and fringe religious groups, (eg scientology). It is self published source to a personal website of Dr Russell Barkley. Please see WP:MEDRS and also Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. The use of this ref is questionable and certainly should not be in the lead. Also it is being misrepresented.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have removed information added to this talk page that was taken from my user talk page by another user, as this makes the discussion a bit confusing. However, if you are referring to Barkley's consensus statement, that was published in a peer reviewed journal, I merely linked to the version stored on his website for ease of reference. It was not self-published, as you should have noticed. ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Additionally, as I mentioned in an above section on this talk page, the important question is whether a reliable, verifiable source describes a particular viewpoint in such a way that it qualifies as a fringe viewpoint under WP:FRINGE guidelines. Specifically, the WP:FRINGE guidelines describe a fringe viewpoint as one that departs significantly from mainstream view in a particular field. Even if a source does not specifically use the term "fringe," we may still apply that label if the source describes a viewpoint in that manner. ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The theories of ADHD not even existing have been posited by fringe religious groups. They have no basis in scientific research. The remaining theories are not supported in mainstream science, and therefore, deserve mention (Meet notability), but they are fringe theories as well.

This is getting tiring to say the least. No journal is going to refer to a theory as fringe, just like no journal will say water is wet either. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is unencylopedic to label things fringe as it is a POV judgement call especially if references don't say so. The idea that "if it wasn't for scientology" there would be no controversy is bogus. That is just a myth promoted by the likes of Barkley who works for the drug companies. Why not just use a non-POV word like "minority" and give it due weight or put controversies into context? Instead of all of this POV arguing and editing. You keep reverting anything I add, which is approaching ownership.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


If we were going to give due weight and whatnot, the controversies wouldn't even be mentioned in the lede of the article. You are lending undue weight to the theories mentioned in the lede. The entire idea of the other theories hinge on one or two proponents in the medical field. Do you consider fringe being what the majority or minority of viewpoints are? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The reference by the way of Barkley is a self published source, which should only rarely be used and rarer more in a medical type article. The fact that it is now in the lead is really a misuse of refs.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


LG, please for the love of god read the WP:FRINGE page. It will take you no more than 5 minutes at most. Please familiarize yourself with what the WP definition of "fringe" is, for the purposes of a WP page. It does not matter how you feel "fringe" should be defined, and furthermore you should know that slinging around the old "pharma shill" fallacy does nothing to bolster your argument. "Fringe" is not a POV term, it is part of Wikipedia policy. ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refs do not say fringe, it is you making that judgement. As I stated on my talk page but will say aggain for other readers. All that I ask is that the articles reflect the references. If a theory is rejected by an important review article say by NICE, WHO, NIH etc then state that, say "some people" or a "minority of doctors" believe xyz however, this view is rejected by NIH, NICE, WHO etc. It is like the Hitler article, majority opinion is he was evil, but yet the article does not say "hitler was an evil man", making judgement calls is unencylopedic, just report the facts is all that I ask, I am not trying to edit war facts out of an article. It is like a tabloid newspaper if you do that. Also you and paranormal discussing deletion of the article may have played a role in me trying to improve referencing. Just because wiki has an article on "fringe" does not mean that that gives you or anyone else the right to go "deciding" in article text what to label as fringe and what as not. Wiki has a neutrality policy to but that doesn't mean that I can go and say NIH, NICE were unneutral or such and such is unneutral as that would be an original research judgement call. If something is rejected by NICE, NIH then REPORT IT as the ref says, all I ask is no original research judgements, just REPORT THE FACTS. We are writing an encyclopedia not a newspaper article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also you both need to familarise yourselves with WP:MEDRS, we now have a self published source in the lead of a medical article, the barkley personal website. Furthermore it is a contested and I alledge misrepresented edit but yet I am the one getting accused of "pushing POVs", huh? Peer reviewed sources should only be in the lead in a medical article, preferable secondary sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, familiar with it. You know where it says we are to present the prevailing medical opinion? Which is: a) ADHD exist b) Hunter theory, neurodiversity, and social construct theory and any other fringe theory shouldn't even be presented. In fact, according to WP:MEDRS, this article shoulnd't even exists, as it's merely a POV fork.
Screw it. Better things to do on WP than argue if water is wet. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I accept it exists and also the article references it as the prevailing theory. The extreme view that ADHD does not exist is just a very small part of this article, so I disagree that the article "shouldn't exist". Hunter theory, neurodiversity, and social construct theory etc probably shouldn't be in the lead a they are minority views.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I reworded a misrepresentation of the NICE publication.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT to Below: why isn't anything said about it being connected to how we learn to use our Reward System? The connection is so obvious by looking at brain scans comparing dopamine activity of ADHD brain to baseline. Thanks, OasisMikeI've learned a new way of thinking. (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Please, can something about this theory fit? differentiation of cause as developmental: infants bond with adults who remain emotionally calm and emotionally available, thus developing a dopamine pathway natural to humans. When deprived of this experience, or forced to defend themselves against harsh emotional environments they are not developmentally capable of handling, they defend themselves by shutting off their dopamine. This self-defense can be described as an "aversion to bonding" emotionally with others, and gets locked in place before the age of two. Because humans have a genetic "drive" to experience dopamine, however, they later form their own pathways. Lacking any road map they often borrow from cultural narratives available (which get it wrong at a basic level, and do not satisfy their needs except briefly). When the drive to access the Human Reward System is not met, it results in Reward Deficiency Syndrome, and a pattern of self-medication often begins by developing behaviors intended to compensate. Dopamine pathways most natural to the human species include emotionally bonded relationships, prayer or meditation, and joy experienced over other's accomplishments or good fortune (Zen "Mudita," not pride). Dopamine pathways popularly considered unnatural to humans include excessive watching of television, drug usage, excessive television viewing, hoarding, alcoholism, smoking cigarettes, sexual addiction and paraphilias, online gaming addiction & cannabis use. (It should be noted hoarding and paraphilias constitute both a result and an end in themselves, in that lacking the ability to concentrate for any period of time on tasks they are not somewhat obsessed with, items build-up and then the patient justifies the build-up in a variety of ways to protect their self-image, often building an addictive pursuit that may provide some brain-chemistry modification, and paraphilias or extreme fantasy helps them focus through their cycle of arousal to completion. I believe this closely follows the narratives of Dr Gabor Mate, which may be called fringe, but...well, from my POV, it fits. I am 50 and was diagnosed a year ago, and have done a lot of reading online (abstracts of brain studies). I know there are separate pages to specific models (RDS & the Conditioned Attentional Avoidance Loop response model) but it would be nice to get them added to either the main or controversies pages, at least as links. What do you folks think? (how do you handle it when the dominant view of the accademic literature has been so heavily clouded by cultural opinion about personal responsibility and punitive justice? - they aren't co-morbid conditions because they don't occur in the normal population at all). Please, tell me I'm crazy...if I am.[reply] 

 - Crazy talk lookin' for a home below this point --------

[And, where would it fit to add something really fringe, like, um, how television filters out narratives necessary to understand ADHD because they leverage us for our shared learning disability that limits us to television, and that's who paid political advertising works on, a captive audience (Yes, I am saying every dollar spent on political campaigns is betting on swaying someone with a childhood condition, and the net effect is the ADHD population of America is the Corporate swing-vote)...someplace for something real, but that cannot be substantiated?] Thanks for your time! I've learned a new way of thinking. (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A reference supporting the text you would like to add is needed. See this page, WP:MEDRS and WP:NOR. Do you have a good quality reference to support your viewpoint?--MrADHD | T@1k? 20:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something else...why quote Tom Cruise at all? He's an actor, not an expert on medicine.--41.146.134.100 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chromtrops (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC) This 'article' is extremely bias and of poor quality. The obvious clear agenda and bias presented by the small group of authors should publish this to their own private blogs, along with their view of made up Autism and Epilepsy. Mark for deletion. Chromtrops (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

@Lova Falk:, I am concerned about the large scale changes you have made to this article. You appear to have removed MEDRS compliant sources in your edits such as here here. Your edit summary seems to indicate you are removing any material that does not have a negative conclusion about medication side effect/effectiveness, which is creating a gross violation of WP:DUE by presenting only one side. While there are controversies in this area, we have to include the mainstream medical opinion on these matters (i.e. that methylphenidate is considered safe). You have also introduced poor medical sources such as old editorial or primary animal studies against WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yobol! Thank you for talking to me, and I understand why you are concerned. However, this is not the article ADHD, not Methylphenidate. This is an article about controversies around ADHD. The section is called: concerns about medication. So it should in a neutral way describe the concerns - rather than in a neutral way describe the long-term effects of the medication. Such a description belongs to Methylphenidate - where you can find it. With friendly regards! Lova Falk talk 19:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And PS: It's night now in Sweden, and tomorrow I'll be at work, so it'll take some time before I can continue our discussion. Lova Falk talk 19:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a neutral description of the concerns has to include all relevant data about it, i.e. not just what the concern is, but what the medical mainstream opinion of the concern is, how relevant that concern is, etc. Otherwise, this isn't a neutral article, but a hit piece where critics' opinions go unopposed and our readers are intentionally left with only one viewpoint about a controversy. I can't see how that can be considered encyclopedic. Yobol (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be best to conclude the discussion of each individual concern with a brief summary of the mainstream view. Primary sources should not generally be used, per WP:MEDRS. 94.196.239.217 (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yobol and 94.196.239.217. In the present text in the section "Concerns about side effects and long term effectiveness" there are TWO sentences describing these concerns:
1) Some parents and professionals have raised questions about the side effects of drugs and their long term use.
2) On February 9, 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted to recommend a "black-box" warning describing the cardiovascular risks of stimulant drugs used to treat ADHD.
The rest of the section are lots of assertions that these concerns are invalid. Now this is not a neutral section at all. Parents and researchers have serious concerns about side effects - this section does not even mention which side effects the drugs can have - not even the side effects that the pharmaceutical companies themselves mention on the leaflet that accompanies the drugs (at least in Sweden).
Furthermore, I would like to ask you: don't you think that a section about concerns ought to differ from a section about the medication? Parents who express their concerns usually do not write scientific articles like the ones described in WP:MEDRS - but does that mean that they should not be represented?
Today has been a tough day at work, I'll get back to you tomorrow or in the weekend. Lova Falk talk 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated before, a neutral article has to give the medical consensus on the safety of these medications. Certainly any notable controversies about side effects, if established and noted in reliable sources, can be discussed. However, you removed all mention of the medical consensus, which is inappropriate. Every medication has side effects; we are not here to document every single side effect, every single "concern" anyone in the world has ever had about medications. We are here to document, given due weight, notable controversies and concerns while documenting the medical consensus about the validity of those concerns. Yobol (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify two points here. One is simply that parents having concerns is not really a relevant statement. Just a few years ago, a whole lot of parents were concerned about the risks of autism associated with vaccines, and it turned out that not a single one of their concerns was scientifically relevant - and even the 'researcher' who told them he did have evidence, made it up. Parent's concerns are only relevant, if you provide the scientific evidence which either supports or refutes (or both if both exists) their concerns.
Secondly - A single 15-person FDA Advisory COMMITTEE recommended a black-box warning - in an 8 to 7 vote. Not the FDA at large. After that, another pediatric FDA panel reviewed the information and did NOT advise a black-box warning, but simply an additional warning about a minimal increase in risk of cardiac issues. In 2007, the FDA specifically declined the first committee's recommendation, and did not issue a black-box warning. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3896970/
That second statement does not suggest the actual reality of the issue. There is no current black-box warning on ADHD medications, and there hasn't been one ever, to the best of my knowledge. The FDA as a group, has never decided the additional cardiovascular risk was prevalent enough to warrant it. CleverTitania (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JRM725 (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about adding this to the page's content.

Non-adherence and treatment acceptability

It is important to note that the rates of treatment discontinuation are higher than the rates of ADHD patients that receive no treatment at all (Frank, Ozon, Nair &Othee, 2015). Few studies underline adherence occurring at high rates; in a population group of 70% low socioeconomic possibility of a 2-parent family dynamic, parental education, and a combination of other interventions are viewed as probable explanations for high adherence rates despite low SES (Ibrahim, 2002). Although an in-depth literature review on empirical studies from 1997 to 2014 revealed a lack of research on adult non-adherence, there is a large body of research on children and adolescents who discontinue treatment (Frank, Ozon, Nair & Othee, 2015).

Bennett, Power, Rostain, and Carr (1996) designates parent perspectives on counseling feasibility and medication effectiveness as possible influencers on acceptability of treatment. One of the most common reasons for stopping treatment is the idea that it is not needed or doesn’t reduce symptoms of ADHD (Frank, Ozon, Nair & Othee, 2015). As a result of undesirable mental aspects like social stigmas, students ages 10-21 years old in an ADHD perception questionnaire claimed that medication was a less desirable form of treatment compared to other methods (Walker-Noack, Corkum, Elik, & Fearon, 2013). A quasi-experimental research study on the parents of Hispanic and African-American children suggests that non-adherence is due to medication risk concerns and shortcomings experienced during treatment like excessive weight times in treatment centers (Berger, Mckay, Newcorn, Bannon, & Larque, 2012). Adverse drug effects like weight and appetite loss, sleeping difficulties, combined with other medically diagnosed conditions could put a person with ADHD at risk for medication non-adherence (Frank, Ozon, Nair & Othee, 2015). On the contrary, research on parent acceptability concluded that parents with children commonly displaying extremely disruptive behaviors have a higher acceptability rate of counseling interventions than medication usage (Bennett, Power, Rostain, & Carr, 1996). Addressing the idea that environment is an acting factor in treatment acceptance, students who are required to take medication at embarrassing times like during school have a lower rate of adherence than those who take less doses throughout the day (Stinnett, Crawford, Gillespie, Cruce, & Langford, 2001).


Adherence and acceptability improvement are possible with accessible and convenient community-based treatment options (Power, Russell, Soffer, Blom-Hoffman, & Grim, 2002). There is some suggestion that understanding the benefits and risks of medication usage equates to a higher parental acceptability and self- reported quality of life for children with ADHD (Sciberras, Efron, & Iser, 2011; Bennett, Power, Rostain, & Carr, 1996). Sciutto’s knowledge, misconceptions, and treatment acceptability study (2011) finalizes this idea by suggesting the implementation of extensive psychoeducational sessions for the promotion of treatment acceptance.



Bennett, D. S., Power, T. J., Rostain, A. L., Carr, D. E. (1996). Parent acceptability and feasibility of ADHD interventions: Assessment, correlates, and predictive validity. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 21, 643-657. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/21.5.643

Berger-Jenkins, E., Mckay, M., Newcorn, J., Bannon, W., & Laraque, D. (2012). Parent medication concerns predict underutilization of mental health services for minority children with ADHD. Clinical Pediatrics, 51(1), 65-76. Frank, E., Ozon, C., Nair, V., & Othee, K. (2015). Examining why patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder lack adherence to medication over the long term: A review and analysis. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 76(11), E1459-E1468.

Ibrahim, E. (2002). Rates of adherence to pharmacological treatment among children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 17(5), 225-231. doi: 10.1002/hup.40610.1002/hup.406

Power, T., Russell, J., Soffer, H., Blom-Hoffman, F., & Grim, S. (2002). Role of parent training in the effective management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Disease Management and Health Outcomes, 10(2), 117-126.

Sciberras, E., Efron, D., & Iser, A. (2011). The Child’s Experience of ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 15(4), 321-327. doi: 10.1177/108705471036167110.1177/1087054710361671

Sciutto, M. (2015). ADHD Knowledge, misconceptions, and treatment acceptability. Journal of Attention Disorders, 19(2), 91-98. Stinnett, T., Crawford, S., Gillespie, M., Cruce, M., & Langford, C. (2001). Factors affecting treatment acceptability for psychostimulant medication versus psychoeducational intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 38(6), 585-591.

Walker-Noack, L., Corkum, P., Elik, N., & Fearon, I. (2013). Youth perceptions of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and barriers to treatment. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 28(2), 193-218. https://doi.org.libproxy.sdsu.edu/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.11.009

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.
The result of this discussion was merge then discuss move. We all agree these articles shouldn't be separate, the contention is only about the final name. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Support merge both into a new, broader article on ADHD in society and culture. Cffisac (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Discussion end

Categories