Talk:History of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. History of Science Mid‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. History Mid‑importance History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Disability History of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Autism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rename page History of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

I propose the page be renamed History of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder because all other subpages use the full name instead of the acronym ADHD. Sifaka ^talk 20:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology section lacks citations

The first two paragraphs feature only one citation between the two of them, and the source used for that citation only mentions that "Hyperkinetic Reaction" was included in the DSM-II, which was published in 1968. The source used does not mention attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder anywhere.-- 20:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism detected in the References Section

I'd like to report, to whom interested may be, that someone vandalized the References section. Thus, do not paste and glue the reference number 1 for it contains the following statement: i think star wars is cooltal.

ADD as an allegedly separate disorder

It is extremely common for people to claim that “ADD” is a separate disorder from ADHD (which is equated with ADHD-PH), and that the DSM once had it listed alongside ADHD. They are always very vague about what edition this would be though.

As it stands, this article says that “ADD” existed in the DSM-III from 1980 to 1987 with and without hyperactivity, and the term has not existed at any other time. It has never, ever, referred specifically to ADHD-PI. There thus seems to be zero reason to use “ADD” to mean “ADHD-PI”, zero reason to ever use ”ADD” to refer to your ADHD unless you were diagnosed in the Eighties, and scanty reason to use it even in that case, since you've had over thirty goddamn years to get with the times.

Is this accurate? I can't find a full text of old editions of the DSM to verify. Correctrix (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Wender

User:Notsonotoriousbig, I am very doubtful to your addition of Paul Wender to this page. Is he really that notable to deserve a whole section? If I look at this article: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3000907/ his place in the history of ADHD is marginal. I would like to remove him, but I am open to your arguments that he is, in fact, important enough. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lova Falk as I'm studying the topic right now, I can't say for sure. The first time I heard about Wender was in the Oxford Textbook of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The references that I found place him as a pioneer on discovering the linkage between genes and schizophrenia and ADHD and he was apparently important for researching AHDH in adults and creating parameters for the diagnosis of the condition. Of course, it could be an exaggeration, as it often happens, but I placed his section here as apparently the sources agrees on his importance to the topic. I've written his article here on Wikipedia too, so maybe we could re-check the sources to evaluate his importance. Notsonotoriousbig (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ Notsonotoriousbig I am not saying he didn't do a lot of good things for ADHD, but my problem is WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." For instance, someone like Russell Barkley is only mentioned as the translator of some text, but if you look at his WP page, the number of books he has written, the awards he has gotten, Wender pales in comparison. When I look at the sources, yes, there is one source praising him - but this is not a source in which different people who have contributed to knowledge about ADHD are mentioned and put in context. By comparison, here is praise for Eric Taylor, including a reward, and he has not even a Wikipedia article: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/archive/news/ioppn/records/2008/10october/professor-eric-taylor

Many, many people have done work that deserves praise. I think that in order to keep Wender, other people need to be added as well - Barkley, Joseph Biederman, Virginia Douglas, Francisco Xavier Castellanos just to name a few. But, do we really want to make the modern era, in which knowledge and research about ADHD exploded, to be a list of names and how these names have contributed? Personally, I would not. The people mentioned before "the race to the moon" are relevant, because there were so few researching what now is called ADHD, but the last thirty years there have been so, so many.

By comparison, the section that you wrote (Race to the moon) is such a good section, describing a development in broad terms. Just imagine how much less interesting that era would have been if you instead would have written: "Maurice Laufer was a child psychiatrist who ... "

I am sorry for writing such a long text, I promise this will be the last thing that I'll add: from the same website that praised Wender (Additude) is here "The History of ADHD and Its Treatments": https://www.additudemag.com/history-of-adhd/. Yes, Wender is mentioned, once, but so are many others, Laufer, Denhoff, Solomons, Eisenberg, Feingold, Rappaport. So a section about Wender is giving him undue prominence. I rest my case! Lova Falk (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lova Falk no worries, I think you have a point. When I have some time, I'll summarize and rewrite his section into the ADHD in adults, as he was important for the diagnosis criteria. Notsonotoriousbig (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]