Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/Archive 2

message: I think this article has FA potential.  Anybody else?  *Kat* 03:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I think it does have FA potential, if only because it is so representative of ADHD. If you really want to know what its like to to have ADHD, read the whole thing (I don't think I got past the second paragraph) or read the talk page :) (Patrick 15:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature Article? 

message: I created the page on Amen classification and linked it to ADHD page adhoc. http://wikipedia.org/wiki/amen_classification
I expected that it would be evolved and information added to it, which did happen. Now I am quite annoyed that someone has deleted the link and sentence to the Amen classification. 
Sure the Amen classification has not been formalised, but it should at least be referred to in the ADHD article that the classification exists and that it is an alternative to the DSM. There is the section "Formal Definitions", what about "Informal definitions?" or something along those lines?
Please in the future, evolve things, do not delete things. 
-----------------------------------------------------
I'm afraid that I can't agree that this article should be nominated for a Featured Article in its current form.
In the Diagnosis section it currently reads that: "In recent times the Amen classification has subclassified the DSM-IV classification and this led to improved diagnostic accuracy, which leads to better selection of medication and treatment. In nearly all developed nations (including the US and UK), doctors are required to conduct a SPECT scan in order to correctly treat the brain's chemical deficiencies. Without this scan, incorrect treatment can do damage to the brain." At the very least this needs citation as the DSM-IV is, to my knowledge, the guide most widely used for psychatric treatment by U.S. doctors.
It also turns out that under the Testing for ADHD - Other Forms of Testing section the article currently reads that "Neurometrics, PET scans, FMRI, or SPECT scans have been used to provide a more objective diagnosis. These are not typically suitable for very young children, and may unnecessarily expose the patient to harmful radiation. Because the etiology of the disorder is unknown, and a complete neurological definition of this disorder is lacking, a majority of clinicians doubt the current predictive power of these objective tests to detect ADHD to be used to direct clinical treatment. Currently, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry recommend against using these neuro-imaging methods for clinical diagnosis of individuals who may have ADHD...An October 2005 meta-analysis by Alan Zametkin, M.D., with the NIMH entitled "The ADHD Report", concluded that these diagnostic methods lack adequate scientific research on accuracy and specificity to be used as a primary diagnostic tool." These statements are cited and directly contradict those in the Diagnosis section mentioned.
What little research I've done leads me to believe that the Amen system does not belong under the diagnosis section as its reliability has not been scientifically proven. If it is kept it in the article, I recommend that it be moved from the Diagnosis section to either the Other Forms of Testing or Alternative Treatments section.
Finally, I feel it is relevant to mention that Dr. Daniel Amen  has set up a set of clinics using his methods, which currently charge $3,250 for a comprehensive evaluation. 
Some basic research should be done before leading everyone to believe that the Amen system is widely accepted in the medical community.
Thank you. --JoeCollege 06:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amen Classification System / Should not be a FA 

message: "teenage pregnancy (30–35%)" If the section is stating that the proportion of people with ADHD are involved in a teenage pregnancy 30-35% more than those without ADHD (as in if 3% of teens are involved in a pregnancy 38% of teens with ADHD are involved in a pregnancy), then that is simple not true.  If the section is claiming that people with ADHD are 30-35% more likely than people without ADHD to be involved in a teenage pregnancy then that is an extremely misleading statistic, probably making a difference of only 1% more teen pregnancies. William conway bcc 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The data is certainly questionable, but it leads to an interesting obvservation: if ADHD is indeed inheritable and if the statistic is in fact accurate, then, in a few generations, we can expect the vast majority of people to have ADHD, because of the increased number of offspring from parents with ADHD. Even if the statistic is grossly overestimated and only lies at 1% of (unwanted) pregnancies above the norm, as you suggested, we can still expect to see the vast majority of pepole to have ADHD several generations in the future. Therefore if there are any more pregnancies from ADHD parents, compared to non-ADHD parents, almost everyone will eventually have ADHD. Therefore, the "disorder", or whatever it will be classified as, will effectively disappear, and people who don't have the ADHD gene will probably undergo some sort of treatment to compensate for their "difficulty to multitask" or perhaps "obsessive behavior", "over-organization", "rigid personality", "lack of spontaneity", etc. (Patrick 13:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting speculation, but it doesn't hold up.  For one thing, even if ADHD sufferers account for an increasingly larger slice of the teenage-parent pie, that says nothing about the much larger portion of society who do not have teen pregnancies, nor about the established fact that the children of teenaged parents have statistically lower life expectancy (due to poor parenting and poverty, typically).  A combination of distinct minority status and relatively lower life expectancy do not seem to indicate a trait that is going to make much headway in the gene pool.  This is only addressing our culture, as well; there are still many cultures in the world where teen marriage and pregnancy is common or the norm, in which case ADHD won't make a noticeable difference.  Kasreyn 04:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean; it's one thing that there may be an increased number of teen pregnancies among ADHD teens, however, most people carry ADHD into adulthood; there is no cure and it doesn't just go away by itself. If you're going forget to use protection, or simply choose not to use it, and believe me, this is far more likely to happen to people with ADHD (see impulsivity, forgetfulness, etc) this behavior will likely continue into adulthood. What makes matters worse, from an evolutionary standpoint, is that ADHD people tend to associate with other ADHD people; therefore this can really lead to an ADHD "epidemic" generations down the line, even if it is just because ADHD people have a tendency to find each other, even in adulthood.(Patrick 17:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all the point you made about the spreading of an epidemic is flawed.  If any of the statistics about ADHD are true then yes people with ADHD would have a higher birth rate. BUT if any of the other statistics about higher rates of STDs and job related injuries are true then people with ADHD would also die quicker, which would cancel out the higher birth rate.  Secondly, this article states that 30% to 70% of those with ADHD continue to have the disorder in adulthood, which is not necessarily a majority.  Third, this complete section, and ALL of its information, is unreliable as it has not been cited. William conway bcc 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparative Behavior

message: Under Cerebeller Stimulation, is the sentence:
 As noted above several studies have shown that the cerebellums 
 of children with ADHD are notably smaller than their non-ADHD counterparts. 
* The link at "above" does not go anywhere
:fixed.  *Kat* 01:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't read the resources.  My intention was to re-write the article.  *Kat* 01:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've read about that too, but I believe this theory has been discredited.  *Kat* 01:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note #2 

message: ADD is NOT the same thing as ADHD. Damnit...
:OMFG, mr. or mrs. anonymous spillbabblemouth, the provided evidence is really extraordinary, thank you very much. SCNR. seriously: practically all persons with an AD(H)D condition i know, including myself, show a mixture of both hyper- and hypoacticity. with either prevalence the type of thought and perception stays the same, it is most propably still one and the same condition of mind. --brsma 03:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG 

message: I will try to find a better way to express my utter disgust for the use of that word and the attempt to imtimidate and impress most doctors. They are busy people trying to do a good job and when someone teaches at a good school and is presented as an "expert" they often fall into line. If you could only see the literally pounds of verbiage that comes to my office each week trying to sell a diagnosis and pharmaceutical treatments all in the name of "experts" recommendations.  It is truly a wizard of oz phenomenon.  Now mind you there are good meds out there and the drugs companies lately need defending, because the pendulum has swung too far, but I can't stand the lack of integrity of these professors and the group think that so many in my profession have fallen in to.  See my reference to Marci Angell above as confirmation of this particular rant.
:Why not refer to them as proponents of medication?  --*Kat* 06:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the use of quotation marks for "experts" 

message: Cut from the Parental Roles section.
:Nonetheless, the author misses on the evident problems of persistent mid- to long-term focus when there are no immediate rewards in the activities themselves, the high propability of social failures, and the fact that even with rewarding activities focus is not under control of the person affected by ADHD.
Lets not have another intra-article arguement.  If the rest of the article doesn't make this point, then the point can't be made.--*Kat* 06:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have severe ADHD.  Therefore the opinions that you have expressed above, including the quotes from your article have succeeded in making me sick to my stomach.  Doctors like you make the lives of patients like me into a living Hell.  Never the less, I agree that your opinions have a place in this ADHD article.  But this talk page is not a debate forum.  Its a place where we can attempt to come to an agreement over what does and does not belong in this article.--*Kat* 04:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Edits 

message: Some one really needs to say that ADD and ADHD are different... Because they are. ok now that that's over with, basically people with ADD (rather than ADHD) find it harder to pay attention (eg in class) and things like that. people with ADHD are different and someone needs to state this and get rid of the redirect from the Attention Deficit Disorder page. 
From a very angry --Xykon 10:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I understand that those two conditions are different, therefore the different abbreviations; however, officially the medical name of the diagnosis is "ADD/ADHD"; the DSM-IV, for example does not distinguish between the two, but each patient's case is reviewed and treated appropriately by the patient's provider. (no need to yell...) -- (Patrick 11:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some one should get it right 

message: Can someone rewrite please? I am unable to parse the sentence. -- Barrylb
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is considered to be a neurological syndrome that exhibits symptoms such as hyperactivity, forgetfulness, mood shifts, poor impulse control, and distractibility, when judged to be chronic, as symptoms of a neurological pathology.
: Barrylb, I've rewritten the first sentence as you requested; it should nwo be intelligible, especially if one follows the Wikilinks should clarification of any particular term in this sentences be necessary. (Patrick 23:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence confusing 

message: Auto-fail reason: Use of  and . Make sure all "negative" tags are not on a page before nomination.--SeizureDog 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failure

message: --Ss06470 03:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  Thanks.  --*Kat* 01:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't consider you to be mean, just wrong.  Your point is one that would jive with many people who don't have ADHD, and apparently it jives with people who do have ADHD, but who don't consider that to be a bad thing.  And if that is how they feel, more power to them.  Myself, I know better.--*Kat* 08:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion of made of statement by the surgeon general 

message: I note in the tidy up of the article (which is a good thing), there have been some bits get a bit skewed, for example, in the Nutrition section, the meta-analysis is attributed to Schnoll et al. The Schnoll paper is a literature review, and the meta-analysis in question was: Neal L. Rojas and Eugenia Chan. (2005). Old and new controversies in the alternative treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 11, 116-130.
There was plenty of cruft that needed removing, but this ended up mis-representing the views 
--Limegreen 10:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrition 

message: I suggest that the article on ADHD be classified under a neutrality dispute, or point-of view problem, as many here argue about the disorder's very existence. If I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral on all topics of discussion.
:If the article discusses the doubts about the disorder's existence in a neutral manner, it is not a problem. Wikipedia does allow multiple points of view to be presented. Let us know if there is some particular aspect with which you have a problem. -- Barrylb 02:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to also respectfully point out that we helped establish an entirely separate article (and include in this article a reference link to it) for the express purpose to be sure that there is plenty of room for discussion for those who have the "it doesn't even exist" belief to express themselves, present supporting information, and in general be heard. So, I feel that tagging the article itself as having a POV or neutrality problem would be wrong. I truly believe that the issue is that we do not all agree about the subject, not that there is an unfairness in presentation(s). There is so much to be learned on this subject that any credible information deserves to be presented; that way, our  readers can form their own conclusions about the subject itself.     Vaoverland 03:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV problem 

message: I understand. I humbly retract my earlier suggestionMelW 13:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV problem 

message: I'm surprised to see there is no mention of cortisol levels in ADHD-diagnosed persons, as several studies seem to show a correlation between lowered cortisol levels and ADHD.
::*Interesting, if you have a source, I will be glad to add the information (Patrick 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cortisol? 

message: I have multiple problems with this section.  This section does not cite its sources.  This section is in violation of NPOV, including the parts which mention that the section is "According to one point of view”. This point of view is not significant enough to include in the article if it cannot be cited.  Only two points of view are significant regardless; the view of the majority (or at least plurality) and the view of the relevant medical community.  I greatly suspect that this section is the result of original research.  Contradictory statements are made in the two paragraphs in this section; arguments should be made on the talk page, rather than in the text of the article.  Finally this section refers to the ADHD article itself, something which should never happen.  The second paragraph attacks the request for citations in first paragraph!  All (in my opinion), or at least parts of this section, should be deleted. I suggest that the uncited information should be deleted after 2 weeks unless there are objects, and that the rest of the section should be fixed as soon as possible. William conway bcc 00:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section has been improved, but the first six lines still need citations.  The claim is made that evidence shows this or that.  If evidence does show that “parents of ADHD children experience more stress and depression, give more commands, spend less leisure time with their children, and vacillate between lax and harsh punishment” then this should not be difficult to cite.  Also most of my objection was to sentences such as “although it has not been scientifically proven to the satisfaction of people who have been declared to be experts in the field,”   I suggest this be rewritten as; although it has not been scientifically proven to the point of satisfaction.  There are other problems like this that I am concerned about. William conway bcc 03:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parental Role 

message: There are a couple of places in this article (as I write this, I'm talking about footnote number 28 and external link 12, although obviously these numbers are subject to change as further edits are performed) that reference "http://www.geocities.com/ss06470/ADHD.html".  As this is a self-published article (albeit written by an acknowledged expert in the field with numerous previous publication credits), it should possibly not be used for this purpose, as it may not be a WP:Reliable source.  I'm not sure what best to do about this.  There may be alternative sources for the information referenced here. JulesH 00:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published references 

message: Bold textI am interested in feedback on my 40 years experience with A.D.D.
I have yet to see a patient who was 'diagnosed' as A.D.D. who did manifest those symptoms and who did not have the following visual problems:
      1. FARSIGHTED-UNCOMPENSATED
      2. ASTIGMATISM-UNCOMPENSATED
      3. EXCESSIVE WEAKNESS TO CROSS EYES-CONVERGENCE INSUFFICIENCY
      4. OVER COMPENSATED NEARSIGHTEDNESS/MYOPIA
:This isn't exactly the place to discuss, but sure, I'll bite.  I have ADD and I'm not farsighted, nor do I have a convergence insufficiency.  However, I'm incredibly nearsighted, but my up-close vision is, to be blunt, excellent. (If I get close to my laptop screen I can pick out the individual r/g/b pixels for each pixel in the screen)  I do also have astigmatism, left eye only.  For reference, my diagnosis with ADD was made AFTER I first started wearing glasses, not before.  If you're looking for a link between vision imparment(sp?) and ADD though I think there's something there, kind of.  Were it not for a friend of mine having recently gotten glasses at the time -- and me and the other friends doing the typical "oo, what's the world look like with those things on" kid thing -- I never would have figured out that my vision was getting worse.  I failed to notice or understand that being unable to read the blackboard from the rear of the room was a problem.  It was only after suddenly being able to read the license plate of a car several feet in front of me while wearing my friend's glasses that I realized something was up. -- Y|yukichigai 17:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER-VISION DEFECT 

message: My daughter was diagnosed with ADHD, in part because she fit the ACID profile on the WISC-III. I don't see any mention of that here, though: is it something that hasn't come up, or something that's been rejected through consensus? I see here that there have been studies that show it's not a good determinant. --SarekOfVulcan 00:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACID test/profile 

message: This is ridiculous, ADD without hyperactivity is just as common yet there is no article about ADD and ADD does not come up once in this article, why is this? Samuel 14:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To make it easier to come to a consensus regarding nomenclature, as well as ensure consistency and avoid confusion throughout this (rather long) article, I suggest sticking with the naming conventions of the DSM-IV, which is considered an authoritative reference for mental disorders used by health care professionals in the United States and other countries. If you have a better / more authoritative or widely used reference, it is certainly worth including such material in the article, however, the DSM-IV refers to ADHD only, implying that ADD and ADHD may be used interchangeably. (I believe this may not always have been the case, however) (Patrick 23:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ADD

message: This section operates from a logical fallacy, the Argument from Ignorance, by implying that ADD/ADHD does not exist since current science isn't able to determine what underlies the disorder. Perhaps someone with experience tending this page can take care of that.
--70.37.248.113 14:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lack of definitive evidence" problem 

message: From Parental Roles *Kat* 06:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From a historical perspective, that is, before failures in inculcating self control became a focus of ADHD by those labeled experts (holding to the belief  that the explanation for the syndrome must be biological) the crucial role of parenting in this area was not in need of "proof". These critics point out that the requirement for proof is part of a narrowly defined "science" paradigm which  narrows the focus of discussions to exclude important criticisms, and wildly exaggerates what is scientifically known.(See above "lack of definitive evidence" and the contrasting claims in the rest of this article.) 
This needs a citation (outside of Dr. Sobo's webpage) before it is reincorporated:
The number of free journals, carrying the opinions of specialists in this field, that repeatedly call attention to this disorder might have something to do with this.
--Ss06470 04:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Edits 

message: I'm tagging the Alternative treatments section as non-neutral. Scanning through it I'm finding lots of questionable prose and probable original research ("Granted, according to a recent meta-analysis, there is little scientific evidence...", "It is claimed by some with ADHD that...", "There has been a lot of interesting work done with..."). This sounds like advocacy at its worst and it has no place in Wikipedia. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the whole article seems to be in dreadful shape. --Guinnog 20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  alternative treatments section neutrality 

message: ADD hoax added without discussion, from a high school, non-regulated, nor peer-reviewed site.
Thanks (Jocomama 20:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Inappropriate link 

message: Because most of the medications used to treat ADHD are Schedule II under the U.S. DEA schedule system, and are considered powerful stimulants with a potential for diversion and abuse, there is controversy surrounding prescribing these drugs for children and adolescents. However, research studying ADHD sufferers who either receive treatment with stimulants or go untreated has indicated that those treated with stimulants are in fact much less likely to abuse any substance than ADHD sufferers who are not treated with stimulants.[24]
This only applies in the United States.  Canada has different, more lenient laws for ADHD.--*Kat* 00:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this paragraph should be removed 

message: I don't see any connection between Dr. Heinrich Hoffman, Struwwelpeter and ADHD; and I don't think Dr. Hoffman's intention was anything more serious than to write an amusing children's story.--House of Usher 17:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's kind of important.  Its mentioned in most major "histories" of the disorder, and was even referred to in The Lancet back in 1899 (not sure about the date).  --*Kat* 03:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this paragraph from the Timeline is entirely spurious and should probably be removed 

message: Jeff Rense has material that someone else has submitted to him that indicates that ADHD is nothing more than a "invented disease" so that "Big Pharma" (Heard the expressions of "Big Tobacco" and "Big Oil" ?!) can make Million$. This may be found on his site itself and in the archives as well. Martial Law 18:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And..? Your external link is still there. I only formatted it. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You ought to see what is on his site, such as the 9-11 attacks, more on how "diseases" are invented so that Big Pharma can make Million$, the Morgollons disease, other real shockers. Martial Law 23:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it. The fact is, if the mainstream media won't touch it, Wikipedia won't touch it either. Martial Law, this talkpage isn't for discussing "shockers"; please let's keep to things that have a realistic chance of going in the ADHD article (fringe 9/11 theories sure don't), otherwise discussion becomes too diffuse to be useful. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do, Bish. Martial Law 03:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeff Rense

message: Why can't ADD be a seperate article?
There is obviously a difference between the two and the two terms are used in different contexts.
raptor 12:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned in the article, ADD is considered by some to be an "outdated" name. (Though perosnally I think it's just fine)  Furthermore, the differences between "ADD" and "ADHD" (using the old-school terms) are simply a lack of certain hyperactivity and related symptoms; all other aspects of the disease are the same.  Having two pages for two remarkably similar and obviously related diseases is unnecessary. -- Y|yukichigai 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this question should be made the first on top of the discussion page. This is the fourth time in the last 37 posts that it has been asked (#8, 11, 25, 36), and before the last archive it was asked many more times. William conway bcc 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why can't ADD be a seperate article?

message: The article does a good job in mentioning that the disease cannot be identified from any biological tests, and that subjective tests are used instead.  However, it needs to make the connection with the fact that drugs are typically applied as a solution.  That is, without being able to identify the disease from a chemical test, we are nevertheless applying a chemical solution.  This is highly illogical -- in the realm of physics if I applied an electromagnetic solution to something that I couldn't demonstrate as having electric and magnetic components, then you would chalk me up as incompetent.  Likewise, the prescription of drugs to solve ADHD is a glaring indicator that scientific method is not being strictly adhered to in this case.
Dr. Karl Hoffower just did a podcast episode discussing this fact among a few other pertinent issues.  He got his data from the Citizens Commission on Human Rights
:First off, you forgot to sign your comments.  Are you ADHD by chance? :P
:Anyway, the suggested additions you propose are WAY out of the realm of Neutral Point of View.  That being said, I think you're overlooking an obvious use of the scientific method: a person has problem behaviors; when the person takes medication, they go away.  By definition that makes it a medically treatable disease.
:There are numerous other dieases out there which do not have any readily identifiable cause or biologically testable symptoms which can confirm it, and instead must rely on testing to exclude other possible causes.  Lupus is a good example of such a disease.  -- Y|yukichigai 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good. CCHR.  Can't beat them for an informed an impartial source.  NOT! --*Kat* 06:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding biomedical analysis of ADD/ADHD 

message: I am removing the following text:
If, as some theorists claim, ADHD is not a single biological condition, but an inability to "get with the program" from whatever cause, then the outlook for these children is obviously variable. It often is linked with conduct disorder and may be the beginning of a life of irresponsibility and possibly crime.  It may also be the beginning of a creative career that creates its own "program."  Many children with ADHD flounder until they find something they love to do, or are inspired by a figure who teaches them the skills that are needed.  And some never get there.
Removal of such a large portion of text deserves the following explanation.  The first sentence is not related to positive aspects of ADHD.  The second sentence describes a negative aspect.  The third sentence is reliant of the first two sentences.  The fourth sentence describes ways in which the disadvantages of ADHD can be overcome rather than a positive aspect.  The fourth sentence is also not ADHD specific.  The fifth sentence is reliant on the fourth sentence. William conway bcc 01:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postive Aspects Section 

message: This just goes to show that I'm not going insane (no pun or shades of malodorous meaning with that)... but the third paragraph in the Skepticism sub-section and the second in the Parental role are, but for a couple of words, the same. That probably shout be cleaned up or both redefined as from my reading the said idea (that it's the natural order of bored kids) could fit under both. Desk Jockey 04:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeats 

message: As with alcoholism, drug abuse, and other neurological spectrum disorders from bi-polar to Asperger's, I would suggest a section with citations on the likely and under-counseled effects of ADHD: on the family dimension--non-ADHD spouses and children and/or siblings; the high recorded incidence in prison populations; in divorce; in adoptive children (from impulsive accidental parent(s)); and the cumulative generational effect (ADHD parent(s) trying to raise ADHD kids, or in denial, or alerted to their own adult diagnosis vi the children), not to mention a stand-alone section on the co-morbid overlap and resulting difficulty in diagnosing and treating when presenting alongside with bi-polar, anxiety, depression, Tourette's, epilepsy, OCD, etc. 
A mention of the national organizations and journals would be helpful.
:There already are several references to the journals.  I'm pretty sure that there are links to the organizations in the external links and references sections.--*Kat* 11:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a valid point, but given this article's prior instability, I believe (strongly recommend in fact) that we work out the wording on a talk page or somewhere out of site. --*Kat* 11:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested additions--under control and cited! 

message: The article is stable and fully referenced.--*Kat* 11:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Landmark achievement