Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies

message: 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 Wikipedia editing newbie, and I'm diagnosed with ADHD. RapturousRatling (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title:  Is it worth suggesting changes atm? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Openskies789 (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: English 202A Writing in the Social Sciences

message: “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)
replies: text: The article will not be changed just based on your opinion that there is such . You need WP:RS for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased intro 

message: — Assignment last updated by Dkhora (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ANTH 193 - Behavioral Science in Practice