Talk:Oppositional defiant disorder

message: It's very telling that this page does not even include a criticisms section. Most wikipedia pages, regardless of their topic, have a criticisms section, and it is very tough to imagine there isn't one competent person anywhere who has objected to these dubious claims. The fire in some of the comments attacking the people for even suggesting a critisisms section (as opposed to filing this under pseudoscience) indicates a dire conflict of interest. "You don't have a kid with ODD so you couldn't possibly know what its like". I could argue the same about you..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.51.46 (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:CSECTION, MEDMOS Order of sections, and WP:MEDRS.  I don't know where you got the idea that most wikipedia pages include criticism sections, but any criticism that is sourced to reliable sources should be worked into the text, not separated.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sandy I'm afraid that is not correct. To include the criticims in a scholarly, scientific or medical article in the flow of the text generates confusion, and is NOT standard practice. All such articles contain - or are meant to contain- Criticism or Controversy sections. Please read more carefully. 114.198.72.82 (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

text: must you use such horrifically ableist language? "The lunatics , it appears, actually are running the asylum."  Dolfone (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Heh it's literally just "being a bitch" as a syndrome. Bring back R D Laing. 31.50.6.62 (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: Three students in my class on abnormal child psychology will be updating this page in the next few weeks. We will try to update the sections on the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, assessment procedures, and evidence-based treatments, specifically, since these sections seem to need the most work.--Skinner's Pigeon (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , please be sure your students are familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines for editing medical content and Wikipedia's guidelines for sourcing medical content. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches may help guide them towards appropriate recent secondary reviews.  The "ideal sources" box at the top of this talk page will also be helpful in locating appropriate sources. They should also be aware that the APA strictly guards copyright and has and will come after Wikipedia if they do not carefully rephrase DSM criteria in their own words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks very much . I will keep an eye on them. We are all new to editing, but we are familiar with the emphasis on secondary sources and prohibitions against DSM-5 copyright. I do appreciate your comments! Skinner's Pigeon (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  , could you please take a close look at the links I listed above, and ping my talk page if you have further questions?  After I wrote the above post, I found numerous issues at Disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, so want to help make sure the students have accessed the correct information about medical content on Wikipedia.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your edits to Disruptive mood dysregulation disorder. It seems like the biggest problems was the lack of page numbers for each citation. We will try to improve that in the future. We will also try to expand the number of secondary sources. It is difficult, however, with a new disorder like DMDD. Skinner's Pigeon (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  There were some other problems there ... hopefully you will step back through the edit summaries to review all of them.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: The epidemiology section for this page is very brief, and I feel that one way to improve it would be to provide information on the comorbid diagnoses that tend to accompany oppositional defiant disorder. These comorbid disorders are a huge part of ODD and have great impacts on those who are diagnosed. 
My proposed edit, to be added to the epidemiology section is as follows: 
ODD has an estimated lifetime prevalence of 10.2% (11.2% for males, 9.2% for females), and of those, over 90% will meet criteria for another lifetime disorder, such as a mood, anxiety, impulse control or substance abuse disorder. In most cases of comorbid disorders, ODD precedes the development of secondary diagnoses. Children with ODD are at increased risk of being diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorders. Additionally, early onset (prior to age 8) of ODD with comorbidity is associated with slow recovery from ODD. Due to the common comorbidity of ODD and conduct disorder, the two diagnoses are often lumped into a single category, despite the fact that many children with ODD do not have and will not develop conduct disorder. 
Ashleighjordan (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comorbidity and Epidemiology  

message: Another suggestion would be to include a brief section on the potential pharmacological treatments that are used. In a cochrane review article by Jik H Loy, Salley N Merry, etc., the pharmacological treatments are discussed. They express how although there is a large amount of variability with pharmacological treatments of Oppositional Defiant Disorder(ODD) how stimulant medications have shown positive effects for treatment of ODD when commorbid with ADHD. Lithium and antipsychotics have also shown positive signs of reducing the aggressive traits of ODD.  
Loy, J., Merry, S., & Hetrick, S. (2012). Atypical antipsychotics for disruptive behaviour disorders in children and youths. Cochrane Library. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008559.pub2/full
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leearnoldml (talk • contribs) 01:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatments 

message: See this revision, which was immediately reverted, for evidence of how unwilling the psychiatric establishment is to tolerate criticism of their power-serving, made-up disorders.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.185.207 (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to our policy against original research. El_C 09:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

text: It's not being deleted. On Wikipedia, new topics go on the bottom. El_C 10:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Drapetomania

message: Symptoms 2,4 & 5 (consistent with neuroticism as minor trait otherwise dominated by openness) characterize much of my later adult life but none of them were present in childhood or early adulthood, or even subsequently, at least insofar as authority I judge to be legitimate is concerned. Also I take it a pattern of non-submission to established authority by reasoning adults, such as questioning authority, speaking truth to power, who do so on principle, anarchists, etc. isn't what this about. Clause I added makes that clearer, if that's wrong please supply a reference to adult scope/onset. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age scope 

message: I suspect that no-one responsible for the current state of this article has ever helped to bring up a normal child. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article written by bureaucrats 

message: -Move the order of the sections for a better understanding of the topic. Add in an section on the pharmacological treatment of this medical condition
Asher1026 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundations 2 2019, Group 1B Goals 

message: "In fact, students with ODD have limited social knowledge that is based only on individual experiences, which shapes how they process information and solve problems cognitively. 
Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand this, but how does this make any sense? How can this claim even be made? Does everyone have social knowledge only based on individual experience? If so, why make it clear that students are people too? There is no speaking person on the planet that is void of social knowledge acquired from anything but their own thoughts. I fail to see how this idiotic sentence has any value, in fact, it reduces the subject in their dismissal of their cognition. Offensive and quite clearly stupid as ****.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:E301:4600:85A7:C842:573D:E752 (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social-Cognitive Section 

message: Why isn't there a section about this? The article for "political abuse of psychiatry" mentions O.D.D. and links to this page, yet there's nary a word about it here? If mention of this criticism is valid elsewhere on Wikipedia, it should be valid here. 
Conduct Disorder has an Epidemiology section discussing racial and sex differences, with mention of criticisms that unconscious bias plays a role. Schizophrenia discusses epidemiology. Many articles about sexual disorders include discussion of controversy and it appears to be fairly common to include epidemiology in medical articles. Why not this one? There's plenty of academic literature about racial demographics in ODD and conduct disorder. Given that this article is explicitly linked in discussion of psychiatric abuse elsewhere, the omission is glaring.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:4480:6f00::c2e9 (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism/Controversy 

message: I've added the globalize template to mention that this section only refers to the US. Greenking2000 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race and gender section is very US-centric