Talk:Russell Barkley

message: Uhm....
I took out this whole section from controversy. I feel, that this is.... unintelligble and unserious right from the first few sentences.
And the rest that then builds upon and can't stand on it's own.
I'm not trying to make some point about the controversy or whatever happened here.
I don't know or care.
The vague impression I got from that section was that Watson's research was against Barkley's interests
and he's somehow manufactured it so, that she lost her job. And that I really don't trust this article at all.
The whole section feels odd and weirdly constructed and hard to follow.
Maybe that episode should have it's own wiki-article? Or be written up with some coherence?
anyway, my problem starts with the first few sentences:
This research documented 15% rates of ADHD diagnosis and drug treatment in her community. Diagnosis rates also slammed and attacked by Keith Conners and Allen Frances. 
// was that documenting diagnosis or drug treatment? What's the 15% referring to. A naive reading implies that all diagnosed cases would be treated with drugs, which defies belief.
// Because this is probably badly written, if one is not paying attention, one might think, that that's what the controversy is about. Watson claiming a non-sense 100% rate of drug-treatment.
// Don't know who Conners and Frances are. But I know you can't slam a diagnosis rate. This is not Wrestling. But it's using wrestling language. 
// Does it want to tell me a story? Does it want me to click on a shitty YouTube video?
// It could be "critiqued", perhaps? Also it should tell me, whether this was considered too low or too high. Also did they make their critique together or seperately?
// Also.... who are these people? I know they have Wiki-articles, but I think a small descriptor each to give context would be appropriate.
Upon hearing of this, Barkley intervened and struck back, asserting that too few people were being diagnosed and medicated for ADHD. In 2004 Barkley claimed that LeFever’s findings from multiple peer-reviewed and published studies were so questionable that they “deserve investigation".[1]
// Okay..... why is Barkley striking back here? Also..... "striking back"? What the hell?! 
// Also it's not clear how Watson struck him in the first place, that he would want to strike back.
// As far as I understand they're both ADHD researchers or at least working in the broader ADHD-field, at least. 
// And they're not at..... Wrestlemania (unless I missed something. I might have. I have ADHD)
And at this point, you might as well scrap the rest of the sentences, cause they build up on something that doesn't make any sense (as I've argued above).
Gretchen LeFever Watson, a practising psychologist in south east Virginia began a program of ADHD research that included epidemiologic surveys. This research documented 15% rates of ADHD diagnosis and drug treatment in her community. Diagnosis rates also slammed and attacked by Keith Conners and Allen Frances. Upon hearing of this, Barkley intervened and struck back, asserting that too few people were being diagnosed and medicated for ADHD. In 2004 Barkley claimed that LeFever’s findings from multiple peer-reviewed and published studies were so questionable that they “deserve investigation".[1]
Within weeks of Barkley’s call for an investigation of LeFever’s findings, someone submitted an anonymous complaint about LeFever’s work to EVMS (i.e., the complaint described above). In response, EVMS conducted an internal investigation of LeFever’s past and current research. Against EVMS policy and common protocol for investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct, the medical school confirmed to the media that LeFever was under investigation.[1]
Barkley's visit and actions resulted in Watson being dismissed from her position. Watson's community intervention programme, which was non-pharma based and had been effective, was dismantled.[2][3][1] [4][1] Must.learn.more. (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I, Russell Barkley, could not agree more with the above.  My skirmish with Dr. Watson is an incredibly minor issue in which she (and Alan Schwarz) wish to portray her as a victim when in fact I had nothing to do with her dismissal.  I did criticize her work in print as producing highly unlikely results and she was subsequently investigated by her hospital for possible misconduct and violation of ethical standards for which she was put on administrative leave and subsequently left that employment.  But I was never involved in all that and had no contact with her employer, as a call to her hospital would surely prove.  Nor should Alan Schwarz be permitted to use innuendo in this biography that is misleading and largely done out of spite because I wouldn't do an interview with him (which he admits, and for good reason).  As a published review of his book by other researchers shows, he often engages in selective citations and misrepresents the work of researchers in the field of ADHD to fit a preconceived agenda he has against medications and ADHD.  For instance, here he states that I am a "pharma-funded scientist," implying that this is my main or only source of funding.  As my website shows (http://www.russellbarkley.org/about.html), my pharma funded research constitutes less than 2% of all grant funding I have received in my career.   But that would eviscerate his intentions so he leaves that out.  He also claims that I received $129K from Eli Lilly from 2009-2-12 but not what for, as that would also water down his intent (it was for speaking about ADHD, consulting on research design, serving on their International Advisory Board, and serving as an expert witness in a Canadian drug patent dispute).  But that is hardly the stuff of scandal he wishes to convey, unless one believes that scientists should never consult to pharma companies.  Of course where would that leave us in this COVID-19 pandemic.  Nor does he say that I have received no funding from Lilly since that time (8 years later!).  But that too would defeat his purposes, which is to cast me as a mere shill for Eli Lilly.  So if Alan's editing of my biography with such innuendo is to remain, then I have the write to add references that either refute his assertions or clarify their meaning thus defeating their purpose.  RussellBarkley (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barkley-Watson controversy 

message: My concern for the quoted passage's quality of not meeting the requirement of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is based on the premise of WP:WIKIVOICE that  and WP:MEDRS that . 
The source  is classified as a review article on PubMed. Thus, stating facts as Russell Barkely's personal opinion is against WP:NPOV.
Also, the quoted passage I think was not carefully worded enough to ensure the WP:NPOV's nonjudgmental language is chosen, for example the word "claimed". Additionally, the quoted passage seems to be inserted into the article without describing the full context, which could be misleading and given that this article does not focus on ADHD. Finally, WP:AVOIDVICTIM: biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. I think the quoted passage is also off-topic.
Taken together, I decided to move the quoted passage away from the article. 
Stringent Checker (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A short passage taken from the Career section 

message: In the consultant section, the sentence "In 2016 Alan Schwarz said Barkley was a "pharma sponsored scientist". It is not clear why their opinion is relevant and seems redundant with the preceding paragraph, which is objective and well sourced. I feel it should either be removed or expanded to explain why it is relevant. 
AlexBenishek (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant Paragraph in Consultant Section