Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies

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.
There was strong consensus in favor of merging Social construct theory of ADHD into Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:15, 24 February 2022 (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 It might also be useful to include the perhaps outdated beliefs of the late Dr.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]

  • Support. Basically I think that the theory should just be a section in this article rather than a single standalone piece. @VariousDeliciousCheeses (great name by the way) wait a month or two and then if there is consensus give the merge a go yourself. I'm happy if you want to ping me to check if our afterwards if you need any help. Cheers Tom (LT) (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have complicated opinions on this one. This article has an incredible degree of overlap with other ADHD articles, and while it has notability, it . So I agree that it should be merged somewhere. The problem is, I despise the controversy article. I think it's a major WP:UNDUE hazard because the list-ish nature of it makes it hard to assess what's due, and the word "controversy" is kinda just bait for POV. The name also implies that ADHD is controversial - and it is - but "the facts" are also very established scientifically. The controversy is all cultural/societal stuff (this will come back later). So I don't love the idea of putting more stuff into that article.
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 - controversies article itself should be restructured and renamed at some point but I think this first step is straightforward Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. It smells like a POV-fork. The controversy article has problems, but adding this content into that article would help. I would support a later merge/renaming of the controversy article to ADHD in society and culture. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it worth suggesting changes atm?

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)[reply]

RapturousRatling, 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)[reply]
@Xurizuri: 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)[reply]
I'm not sure the current consensus, but could someone please change the name from 'attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies' to 'ADHD in society and culture' or even 'opposition to the diagnosis of ADHD'. This title is quite biased and stigmatising, and it seems to be baiting those against adhd. It's been 3+ years yet there still hasn't been a change. Lavendr (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lavendr and others. I understand your frustration. However, the way this article is phrased and constructed, it is about "ADHD controversies". Obviously, nobody is up to do the big job of changing the title and rewriting the lead, especially not when the article can be merged anyway. I am not up to it. I'm sorry. Lova Falk (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biased intro

“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)[reply]

The article will not be changed just based on your opinion that there is such valid evidence. You need WP:RS for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed stimulant text

I removed the following ramble from the "Stimulants" subsection. It's a grab-bag of silly instructions (take your pills with food), trivia (Ritalin was invented in Switzerland), and confused statistics that seem to want to point at some kind of anti-stimulant argument that is never actually presented. Einsof (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Methylphenidate is commonly used for treating ADHD, narcolepsy, and for cognitive enhancement.[1] It was first created by chemist Leandro Panizzon in 1944 and later patented in 1954 by a Swiss pharmaceutical company known as Ciba.[2] Methylphenidate was first introduced into the market as Ritalin in the 1950s.[1] Methylphenidate gradually gained attention for its effects in treating narcolepsy. The use of methylphenidate expanded in the 1960s when it was discovered to be effective in treating hyperkinetic disorder, now known as ADHD.[3]

Between 1993 and 2003 the worldwide use of medications that treat ADHD increased almost threefold.[4] Most ADHD medications are prescribed in the United States.[4] In the 1990s, the US accounted for 90% of global use of stimulants such as methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine. Although in the 2000s, trends and patterns in data show that there was a rise in the percentage of drug usage in other countries worldwide. Prevalence and incidence rates of the use of stimulants increased at a high rate worldwide after 1995 and continued to rise at a lower rate until it plateaued in 2008. The global usage of stimulants was rising at rates related to the high percentage used originally in the US. Many other countries began to see more prescriptions for stimulants as well as more usage of prescription stimulants such as methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine among children and adults.[5] From 1994-2000 as many as 10 countries saw a dramatic 12% increase in the use of stimulants. Australia and New Zealand became the third highest users of stimulants after the United States and Canada respectively.[6] By 2015 countries such as the UK saw a rise of stimulant prescriptions by 800%. The time period with the highest rise in percentage being from 1995-2003.[7]

Dextroamphetamine is an extremely powerful stimulant, commonly used to treat sleep disorders and ADHD. The medicine can be taken with or without food, and it is available in three different forms, Oral tablet, Oral extended-release capsule, and oral solutions. However, you cannot buy this medicine without a doctor's prescription.

In 2003, doctors in the UK were prescribing about a 10th of the amount per capita of methylphenidate used in the US, while France and Italy accounted for approximately one twentieth of US stimulant consumption.[8] However, the 2006 World Drug Report published by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime indicated the US constituted merely 17% of the world market for dextroamphetamine.[9] They assert that in the early 2000s amphetamine use was "widespread in Europe."[9]

In 1999, a study constructed with 1,285 children and their parents across four U.S. communities has shown 12.5% of children that met ADHD criteria had been treated with stimulants during the previous 12 months.[10]

In May 2000, the testimony of DEA Deputy Director Terrance Woodworth has shown that the Ritalin quota increased from 1,768 kg in 1990 to 14,957 kg in 2000. In addition, IMS Health also revealed the number of Adderall prescriptions have increased from 1.3 million in 1996 to nearly 6 million in 1999.[11]

Einsof (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies