Talk:Daniel Amen/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RFC: List of journal articles

The following discussion 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.

---

Result: No consensus. For now, the article should not include a list of Amen's journal articles.

Five editors supported the inclusion of a list of journal article and seven were opposed.

In support of inclusion, it was pointed out that WP:MOS encourages exhaustive lists of works in biographies. However, we are not always obliged to do as the MoS says, and it was also pointed out in the RfC that exhaustive lists are often not included, even in the biographies of very significant authors. So, it seems that editorial discretion may be exercised here. It was also argued that a list would be useful because such a list is not available elsewhere on the Internet. This seems a reasonable argument to me, although the same fact could also be used to construct a different argument, that the absence of a list on the Internet simply indicates that the world doesn't need one.

Against inclusion, it was argued that Amen is not a major/serious writer in terms of journal articles, so their inclusion in the form of a list would be WP:UNDUE. This also seems a reasonable argument, but it doesn't exclude the possibility that Amen may have written articles that are notable for reasons other than that they are taken seriously (consider the same logic in the case of Andrew Wakefield, for example). An argument was also made that publishing journal articles is, in itself, "standard and unremarkable". I think this is a good point. Some academics might have spent decades publishing scores of relatively insignificant articles before finally hitting on the line of research that made them notable. In such a case, should we really list all those insignificant articles? This case might not be comparable to that hypothetical case but, at the same time, no real case has been made that Amen's journal articles are in any way important to his biography.

Overall, this seems to be a near-win for the opposes, but I'm closing as no consensus because participation in the RfC was quite low and because there is not much practical difference between a win and no-consensus in this case. No consensus means sticking with the last stable version with regard to the material in question, which did not include a list of articles.

Editors wishing to see a list included might wish to consider presenting an argument based on the significance of Amen's journal articles. I don't think it is a strong enough argument to simply say "They exist, so we must mention them".

Should a list of journal articles written by Daniel Amen be used in his biography? GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Support

• Yes. Consider this advice from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works,

Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. If the list has a separate article, a simplified version should also be provided in the main article.

GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yea. According to the Manual of Style/Lists of works Wikipedia policy (see above), the list of Amen's articles should be included. Having written several articles and books, Amen is an author. The individual items on the list are not notable enough to merit their own Wiki articles. The articles in the list were published in peer-reviewed neuroscience journals. There is no clear list of Amen's articles already freely available on the internet. The proposed list satisfies every requirement of Wikipedia's Lists of works policy. Furthermore, a list of Amen's articles would serve the article readers and allow them to look up the studies Amen has conducted with brain imaging so that they can learn for themselves whether they believe Amen's claims. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. Agreement or disagreement with Amen's ideas, books or journal articles is not the point. He did write them, and all readers should be able to read them, or not. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• I concur and support their listing. As aptly pointed out above, the rules “encourage” complete lists of an author’s body of work. He wrote the articles; thus they should be included. The opposing arguments seem to focus on the acceptance of his claims by other institutions and organizations. The mere fact that someone disagrees with the content of an article or book does not mean the article or book does not exist, or that the author did not write it, or that it should be suppressed from the public. I see several relevant featured article examples that include this same type of list---see for example, Bernard Williams, Hilary Putnam, and William S. Sadler. According to the Featured Articles page, “Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles.”Familygardner (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. If he is an author a list of his works is appropriate, regardless of whether the content is agreeable or not. AlanS (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

• No because, "None of the nation’s most prestigious medical organizations in the field — including the APA, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American College of Radiology, the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging and the National Alliance on Mental Illness — validates his claims. No major research institution takes his SPECT work seriously" per the Washington Post. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• No per MrBill3 -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Amen is not known or esteemed as a writer of journal articles, so listing a few miscellaneous ones ain't encyclopedic. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
• Have to agree with the above. The list of books is fine, but a journal list would be undue. AIRcorn (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per MrBill3. Amen is not a scholar. He's a 'businessman.' SW3 5DL (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • One can be both a businessman and a scholar. Plenty of those in the world. At any rate, these listed articles have been reviewed and accepted by scholars, in neuropsychiatry, psychoactive drugs and neurotrauma; therefore, we are really duty-bound to list them. Who are we to go against the conclusion of experts in the field? And, really these articles seem to be fairly narrowly focused. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • We're following the experts by not including them. Unless there are good sources that list his most notable publications it is OR to list them. Peer review doesn't mean that the authors views are 'accepted' as all the other sources in the article demonstrate. SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with the above. The arguments for inclusion haven't persuaded me to change my mind from June. SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Publishing journal articles is standard and unremarkable for any researcher, and each one publishes a long list of them. Any individually notable publications can be listed, but this isn't resumepedia and we shouldn't list all of them. Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Add your concerns below.

• Is there reliably sourced scholarship that mentions these articles, or would the list be based on original research? Has the subject of the article made a notable contribution to journal publication warranting considering him as an author of journal articles? It seems some sources say he is not considered a scientist so a list of journal articles would not be appropriate to the subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

One may not believe that Amen is a scientist, but he is certainly an author, is he not? It says so right in the lede. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There may be a case for having a "Selected publications" section with some of his bestsellers listed (esp. if they are mentioned in secondary sources), but he has no noteworthiness as the (co-)author of journal articles, so listing a few miscellaneous ones of those is undue & not encyclopedic. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thus a list of his books is appropriate. Those who make contributions to scientific publication (journals) are discussed as scientists not as authors in general. Is there a scholarly work that gives his publications in journals some significance? In the general media Tucker 2012 says "mostly in small journals" and Shapiro 2012 says "critics say these abstracts are incomplete, inconclusive, or published in unreliable journals". - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the MOS wording being invoked by the supporters above in fact applies to "authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists". Amen is not any kind of artist (in the sense meant by the MOS). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the objection made above regarding the objectivity or the number of citations, the article in "The Daily Beast" by Eliza Shapiro states: "On his website, he points to nearly 2,800 scientific abstracts on the power of SPECT and its relationship to psychiatric problems (critics say these abstracts are incomplete, inconclusive, or published in unreliable journals)." Well, who are these "critics"? Did they examine the two publications that were in our article until they were removed? I don't think we editors have to determine the reliability or not of these publications, only that Amen has written them. The publications in question are Journal of Psychoactive Drugs and Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not up to WP editors to ask who are these critics and which articles they examined (that would be OR). We have a reliable source that has cited these critics and chosen to express their criticism of Amen's journal articles rather explicitly. Other sources also refer to the low level of significance (see Luechter 2009) of Amen's publications. Are you offering any sources that provide a different view of Amen's journal articles? See WP:NOT § WP:INDISCRIMINATE for the reason the 2 million or so journal articles published each year are not all listed on WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Has anybody noticed there is no such school as Southern California College which is listed as Amen's undergraduate college? There's University of Southern California (USC), and there are the Claremont Colleges, and there's UCLA, the Cal State system, but I couldn't find Southern California College. Also, has this BLP been written by someone with a COI? SW3 5DL (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • At least one COI has been in play: see the template at the head of this page. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

When I Googled 'Southern California College' and found nothing, it was because it's real name was Southern California Bible College which then became Vanguard Uni. Don't know why the name was shortened for the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

New eyes

We need some new eyes on this discussion, which is fairly well divided right now, with an end not in sight. I've taken the liberty of asking a volunteer for help at User_talk:Theodore!#Daniel_Amen. I chose this guy at random. If anyone wants to ask another volunteer, there is a list at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Volunteers. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

For personal interest, and because somebody somewhere here made imo a valid observation that if all BLPs had to have all journal articles listed there would be an awful lot of work to do here, I checked just a couple of BLPs of people who have published in journals. See Alan Sokal, Richard Feynman and Brian Josephson. One of the three is particularly notable for his journal publications, but we do not list them all. The other two are only Nobel laureates, and theirs are not all listed. Rather than new eyes on this discussion, always welcome btw, we just need to acknowledge that to suggest we list all journal publications in BLPs is a bit silly. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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.

Promotional websites not RS

This site is not RS note at the bottom of the page the publisher is asking you to register for a talk by Amen that said publisher is promoting for financial gain. http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2010/oct2010_Integrated-Medicine-Optimizes-Brain-Function_01.htm. The National Speaker Association Magazine is likewise a promotional vehicle for speakers not a reliable source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

LEF.org is reliable. With just a cursory search I found a number of pages using it, as well as people referencing it on Talk pages with no issue regarding reliability. Here's a few examples: Green tea, Murad Alam, Eric R. Braverman, Mary Ruwart, and Norman Orentreich.

Same issue for the National Speaker Association Magazine. A quick search turned up other Wikipedia articles using it. On what basis are these sources appropriate for the rest of the wiki community, but not here? Dmrwikiprof (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

A site selling tickets to an talk is not a reliable source for the speaker at that talk. How much more clearly promotional could a source be?

That a source is used somewhere else on WP is a very weak argument for the reliability of a source. I contend again NSA Mag is a vehicle for the promotion of speakers, not a reliable source on them. Where is the support for their journalistic reputation and fact checking? It is a promotional work for it's members.

I also contend that the deleted content was puffery and undue. Consider the NPOV policy, "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Take a look at the prominence and proportion of significant views and the reliability of the sources that have published information on the subject. Consider the due weight of statements byofficials at major medical and scientific organizations, the commentary of recognized experts in the field and recognized authorities in assessing fringe treatments, the prominence of publications. Really what kind of due weight does the bio, probably self authored, in a minor promotional magazine for speakers or the website of an organization promoting a talk by the subject carry, in a word none.

For that matter how reliable is The New York Times for asserting the subject is a "brain disorder specialist" shouldn't that be coming from authoritative sources with standing in the field. It may be how the NYT described the subject but for an encyclopedia shouldn't the source come from an authority in the field or at least a journalist who has experience writing on the topic of brain disorders rather than a sports reporter? - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Biased Language

Regardless of our personal thoughts on Dr. Amen (and the evidence seems to inidicate that he is either a bad scientist or a charlatan, or both), I think the following language doesn't belong in a WP article (unless it is a direct quote, which the following isn't):

"Amen's claims for the use of SPECT are no more than myth and poppycock, buffaloing an unsuspecting public..." Dreslough (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree, fixed. Odd word, "buffaloing" ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced content for this page

From the beginning, this article reads as a criticism of a "quack" doctor. Despite citations as to source, it has a clear bias against Daniel Amen's work. It should be more neutral and fact-based, to let the reader be informed and decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleh77 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

I have restored sourced content that was removed without discussion. As the content reflects the sources in their discussion of Amen it belongs in the article. The journal articles actually discuss Amen's clinics directly. Before removing sources and content read the sources and claims that they do not apply to Amen will clearly not be supported. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC) The content also reflects the current scientific medical understanding of biomedical information presented in this article and is thus double appropriate per WP:MEDRS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove this. Can User:Mdann52 please explain why it should be? SmartSE (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the comments from Washington Post Magazine should be attributed, so I have left them in limbo while this is discussed; but the removal of the paragraph citing mainstream criticism of the SPECT offering badly compromises the article's neutrality and I have restored it accordingly. Are we to understand Amen has complained via OTRS that he doesn't like what this article says? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

With my editor hat on, this has nothing to do with the person who is the subject of the article, so is not really ideal to include here. Unfortunately, I can't say anything publicly with my OTRS hat on, but feel free to contact me via email, and I'll see what I can do. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that it has "nothing to do with" Amen (especially where he is named in person by the content you have deleted). Your ES says "As this is an OTRS action, please don't retore it without being cleared to do so". What policy gives editors who invoke OTRS the right to have their version of an article remain untouched? And who is responsible for granting "clearance". Looks to me like you're edit-warring - and I know we have a policy on that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Alex. The information is highly relevant to what Amen is notable for and to suggest that it is undue to include information about what experts in neuroscience like Martha Farah and Jeffrey Lieberman think of his techniques is ridiculous. Quackwatch is admittedly not such a great source, but I think that we present it in a neutral fashion which is far-improved from when it was bought up at the AFD in 2011. This article has been edited extensively in the last year and the current version was reached through a long period of discussion with input from multiple editors. I appreciate the need for privacy with OTRS, but I was not aware that it was a content veto. If an issue has been raised we should discuss it here and if necessary at BLPN, but not just remove it without any discussion. Also, which is the 'main article' you referred to in your edit summary? SmartSE (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: Can you please explain the reasoning for removing it? I'll be replacing it there is no good reason. SmartSE (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Smartse: I have partially self reverted. The main removal, as it turns out, wasn't the issue; I have managed to get this clarified. However, the remaining small section probably shouldn't (without my OTRS hat on) be restored, as they are frankly WP:UNDUE. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks. That leaves me more confused... but whatever! I agree that it was right to remove the quote. SmartSE (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

New content from peer-reviewed article on SPECT

I will be adding material from a peer-reviewed scientific journal article per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Cite_peer-reviewed_scientific_publications_and_check_community_consensus. The article is titled Triangulating perspectives on functional neuroimaging for disorders of mental health and is from the BMC Psychiatry journal. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding User:Alexbrn's reversion - in your edit summary, you pointed to the additions made as "cherry picking". Were you able to read the article? It's a legitimate source and the additions made were based off of final findings of the article. However, if you still feel that the additions were for some reason cherry picking, could you point towards things we could add from the article that wouldn't be cherry picking? Dmrwikiprof (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The title of the article you added is Brain Branding: When Neuroscience and Commerce Collide. This article concentrates on the mis-selling of inappropriate neuroscience-based "therapy". Is the stuff you added even in the article? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Strange, the edit should have cited the article titled Triangulating perspectives on functional neuroimaging for disorders of mental health by James Anderson and Ania Mizgalewicz, published in 2013. Here's a link http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/13/208 Dmrwikiprof (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A survey: primary research. Don't add that either please. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a great source. Peer-reviewed and a secondary source per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources. In particular, the "report itself is a secondary source reflecting the published analysis, synthesis and reporting of the census by experts." The people that carried out the study were all experts as they were accepted to be published by the scientific journal.Dmrwikiprof (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Another quote a few paragraphs down that is also relevant here "Peer-reviewed articles are generally highly preferred sources".Dmrwikiprof (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A team did a small telephone survey and wrote it up; it's primary. Also, it doesn't mention Daniel Amen so even if if were a reasonable source, it's not even relevant. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If you read their methods and background, it was actually a highly-technical study (and it would have to be in order to make it into that kind of peer-reviewed publication, a journal with an impact-factor of 2.24, which is very notable for psychiatry). And the study actually does reference Amen or his work 11 times. Not to mention that the entire study is about SPECT, which has its own section on Amen's article. So, the study is definitely relevant. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A telephone survey of patient satisfaction is a poor quality source. It is primary as it is directly assessing the satisfaction of the subjects not secondary. The due weight given the notability of the publication might amount to a mention that patients have expressed satisfaction. However assessments of efficacy and the positions of major academic and professional organizations carry much greater weight and are substantially more relevant. In an encyclopedic article the discussion of a medical procedure should be clearly driven by scientific evaluation of the procedure, popularity is a minor aspect and should be presented only as due. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Choosing which scientific journal articles to include based on the method of the study is OR. Per your note, I'll add back some of my original edit, as each explicitly stated it was patient feedback and didn't touch on efficacy. To keep it due, I'll leave out the edit regarding whether or not patients would choose to use SPECT again.Dmrwikiprof (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not OR but editorial discretion. It's important to discuss the opinions of expert's on Amen's techniques in this article but we shouldn't be aiming to include information every article published about SPECT here. Given that the paper has only been cited by the same authors so far, there is no way for us to tell whether this study is important or not and I agree with Alexbrn and MrBill3 that it's cherry-picking to include it. SmartSE (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Evaluation of sources on talk pages is not OR. OR refers to article content not discussion on talk pages. It is an important function of editing WP. MEDRS specifically states, "'Assessing evidence quality' means that editors should determine the quality of the type of study." (emphasis in original). So the statement, "Choosing which scientific journal articles to include based on the method of the study is OR." clearly does not reflect the widely accepted guideline. In considering the study under discussion it is not "a secondary source reflecting the published analysis, synthesis and reporting of the census [sic] by experts." (emphasis added). It is a telephone survey of patients opinions not the consensus of the academic community. Look at the descending list of quality sources on MEDRS and see where an opinion survey (type of study) would rank... off the bottom. Thus it is undue weight to include content based on such a low quality type of study at all.

See also WP:RS, "secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." (emphasis mine) This study is primary, the information discussed hasn't been presented elsewhere and is being discussed by the researchers who gathered that information (that's exactly what primary is).

Evaluation of a journal article short of a full peer review is common practice on talk pages. Such evaluation and analysis is important in determining due weight when secondary sources (a secondary source discussing the study in question would be helpful) don't provide evaluation of studies and in considering the due weight of two studies of the same type. If you have questions about how sources are weighted, evaluated etc. that are not answered by a careful reading MEDRS the project medicine talk page is a good forum. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you SmartSE and MrBill3 for the detailed thoughts on why you think this source isn't a good fit currently. As I continue to read through journal articles this will be helpful guidance in determining if they are due or not as I consult policy. It may also be worth looking at the journal articles used on the page currently to see if they pass this same litmus. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for civil and collegial participation. If you look at the existing sources I think you will see they are appropriately used. Of note is the distinction of what content is biomedical information thus falling under MEDRS. I think an argument could be made for mentioning patient satisfaction based on the source discussed here. While medical efficacy and the acceptance of the medical/scientific/academic community are far more weighty patient satisfaction measured by a published study may be something that could be in the article. Consideration is also due to an article by Paul Raeburn a science journalist, writing under the auspices of Knight Science Journalism Fellowships, with a history of published work on the subject.

Raeburn, Paul (July 8, 2014). "PsychCentral posts on Amen clinics neglect one thing: evidence". KSJ Tracker. Knight Science Journalism Program: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Archived from the original on 2014-09-24. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

As I mentioned content that is not biomedical information falls outside MEDRS and the guideline WP:RS together with consideration of due weight (policy) would apply. My basic sense is that Amen's practice is popular and patients express some satisfaction despite the assessment of experts that the practice is essentially pseudoscience and experts consider that satisfaction unfounded. I don't know how that should be expressed in an encyclopedic article. I am not sure how assessment of patient satisfaction falls between biomedical information and general content, comments appreciated. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on when MEDRS versus WP:RS apply; it looks like I was applying the wrong standard for this source. Based on what you said about it being used as a simple statement for patient opinion, can I propose a short addition on patient satisfaction? I also agree with your overall assessment that Amen has critics in the field but seems liked by his patients - he seems to acknowledge that with quotes in some of these articles. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think some consideration of due weight is in order, but as we have a section "Reception" this might be the place to put a mention. I'd like to hear what other editors think RE due. Amen saying he is liked by his patients is already included in the quote from him. The due weight of a primary source is questionable, perhaps with some time the study will be commented on/discussed by others bringing it to the level of encyclopedic weight. On the other hand it is a published journal article. "Amen has critics in the field" far from how I would describe my assessment but I think the sources speak for themselves on that. Thank you for your open minded engagement and I would add that my interpretation of WP policy is always a work in progress and I claim no authority or superior insight. I have just been through a good amount of discussion on policy. In any case the best thing is to go to the policies and guidelines themselves. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I recently added information from a study published in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences (a well-regarded journal dedicated to medical tools/research like SPECT) and it was quickly removed by User:BullRangifer who stated that "This does not meet MEDRS standards for inclusion." It seems to be the very kind of source that we would want in an article like this. Is there a particular reason why it is not up to MEDRS standards? Dmrwikiprof (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS prefers reviews of many good quality studies. Single studies are a dime-a-dozen and often have little worth. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that new single studies are commonplace generally, but not new single studies on SPECT and Amen's particular methods. The study has relevance because it is all about SPECT and its effectiveness (a significant portion of Amen's article is dedicated to this) and because it was published in a top neuroscience journal. The study also has relevance outside the journal as it was recently reported on in Molecular Imaging: http://www.molecularimaging.net/topics/molecular-imaging/neuroimaging/3d-brain-spect-may-lead-better-cognitive-function-psychiatric-patients. It's a great source for Amen's article, if not from the journal directly, then at least from the Molecular Imaging article. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Should content on patient satisfaction be added to Reception section based on above source?

(Sub heading to seek comment) - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Undue and primary

I have reverted a recent addition to the "Work for athletes" section. The content is WP:UNDUE and uses WP:PRIMARY sources excessively. Encyclopedic content on scientific studies should be based on secondary sources. The subject of the article is not notable in the field enough to warrant extensive discussion, the sources provided that are not primary consist of a newspaper blog and an appearance on a news magazine. If an editor feels this is important content please present a proposal that reflects due weight and doesn't rely on primary sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand your justification for the reversal in part. Primary sources, such as the scientific studies, should not normally be quoted directly. In this case, since they were all referenced by the popular press, I judged it would be appropriate, considering the rest of the article uses direct quotations heavily. So I still believe that there is a place for the other articles cited. The sources were the blog of prominent Los Angeles newspaper and an NBC News affiliate in Los Angeles. Other secondary sources of similar reputability, such as the Washington Post Magazine article and the Daily Telegraph article, feature prominently throughout Daniel Amen’s biography. There surely is a way to incorporate more information about Amen’s work for athletes, especially since it’s been written about almost as extensively as his SPECT work in the popular press. Macrowriter (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

From the beginning, this article reads as a criticism of a "quack" doctor. Despite citations as to source, it has a clear bias against Daniel Amen's work. It should be more neutral and fact-based, to let the reader be informed and decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleh77 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality means reflecting what the best sources say. These are predominantly critical of Amen's offerings and so (to be neutral) our article reflects that. Are there good sources we're missing? Alexbrn (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Daniel Amen. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-06/mf_neurohacks

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Amen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201195139/http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/01/04/3694993/desolation-of-smaug-guidebook.html to http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/01/04/3694993/desolation-of-smaug-guidebook.html#storylink=cpy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Balance tag

Hello, I came across this page, and can't help but notice most of the page consists of criticism of Amen's practice. Criticism is great, but if not balanced by alternative perspectives, easily runs afoul of WP:Balance, WP:BLP, and WP:Neutral point of view. I assume the argument (to my reverter) is that the page is "fair and balanced" because most academics seem to criticize his practices - although to point at the blatantly obvious, if he is "the most popular psychiatrist in America," clearly there are noteworthy voices supporting his practices. Just glancing through the big Washington Post article, I can see that there are several quotes supporting Amen that have been left out, in what looks to be a glaring case of WP:Cherrypicking POVs. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance mandates at least mentioning those viewpoints, or risk a BLP violation. I won't go so far as to say this page is a WP:Coatrack for anti-SPECT/alternative medicine viewpoints, but it is definitely veering that direction. I am leaving the tag up at least until I have the proper time to check for opposing views, or until consensus is met here that the problem is fixed. Thanks! Looks like a lot of activity on this page, so I'm happy to see I likely won't be working alone. Note the balance tag can also be removed if one of these criteria is met: Template:Unbalanced#When_to_remove. Earflaps (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You should consult the talk page archive. The fringe views about SPECT are properly contextualized by reliable sources. Insisting on a tag while you carry out personal research is a kind of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Alexbrn (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no doubt the page is currently unbalanced, even though more research still needs to be done. Simply put, even if Amen's views/practices are total baloney, articles in publications such as the Washington Post spend significant time explaining them, and explaining their popularity, making it very clear they are not "fringe" in any way. Among the different explanations the articles go into are the scans having a placebo effect, and I argue until information such as this makes it on the page, the noteworthy POVs are unbalanced and the cherrypicking is egregious. Thank you for contributing to the discussion, I look forward to having somone to bounce ideas off of. :) Earflaps (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Amen is a pusher of woo and that is what he is famous for. You need to actually read WP:NPOV - we don't repeat woo uncritically. Your tags are invalid as you are seeking false equivalence. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Reading that guideline, no-one here is claiming that we need to present Amen's/his supporters' claims "as if they were of equal validity" with other academic opinions. Lobotomy and trepanning are also "woo," as you put it, but as they were immensely popular and influential, the topics still dutifully repeat all relevant popular theories about the practice, and explain why they were popular using reliable sources. Attribution simply needs to be kept clear as day, so readers can come to their own conclusions about whether the practice is "good" or "bad." Also, GEVAL isn't the only guideline that applies here. BLP reads "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." This, I would hope obviously, includes actually describing Amen's practices in detail (and his motivations), instead of simply asserting twenty times that they are "unproven." Earflaps (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

So get off your ass and propose well-sourced content you think is neutral. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you try being nice. There's no timeline on Wikipedia, and I get the impression if I posted sloppy material pre-emptively, I'd get my head bitten off. Earflaps (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you try doing something productive instead of tagging and hand-waving on the Talk page. I am happy to consider content proposals. I'll reply again after you make some, and not before. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you for real? You can wait a few days, the page won't implode in the meantime. I swear, sometimes I feel like I'm the only person in the whole of Wikipedia who has read WP:Civility. Earflaps (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Earflaps. How nice to see you on this page. Roxy the dog. bark 23:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Why thank you! :b Earflaps (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a pleasure. But did you read my edsum? Roxy the dog. bark 00:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Page protected

Regardless of the presence or absence of a tag, the page won't implode if no one can disrupt it either. Page protected for 1 week. Longer if disruption resumes after protection lifts without resolution on this page. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Anachronist. So Earflaps if you want to propose content, am all ears. as it were. indeed, no rush. Jytdog (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

New source

This piece by Richard Bernstein and published in August has more on his PBS shows and on his concussion work with NFL. SmartSE (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Earflaps (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

On the Salon article

Someone(s) has done a nice job making sure tabloids and blogs don't make it on the page - the big exception looks to be an editorial in Salon, a liberal tabloid. Normally I would remove Salon or any tabloid without hesitation, but hesitated this time per WP:BIASED and WP:NEWSORG, the latter of which reads "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." So I might argue if the columnist Robert_A._Burton is a published authority on Amen's practices (which at first glance he seems to be), the article still could have value as an expert opinion, even without solid editorial oversight. I'm just not familiar enough with Burton or his work to feel comfortable making a call on that, to gauge if his repute would outweight how sensational the website is. Thoughts? Earflaps (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Salon is not an inherently problematic source, as has been discussed before at WP:RS/N. Robert A. Burton is a neurologist and skeptic, and useful for WP:PARITY. I don't see anything sourced to this source which is problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I also don't see a problem. We can't say that a particular site is an RS or not RS, it depends on what is being cited to the article. I've re-checked the article and what is cited to the source it is only used to either report indisputable facts e.g. "Amen's websites market vitamin supplements and a branded range of other dietary supplements." or clearly states the authors opinions "neurologist Robert A. Burton criticized PBS for the airing of these programs". If we were using the headline, that would obviously be a problem, but we aren't. We can tone down a sensationalist source and get good information from it. SmartSE (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Cool. I have no problem using biased sources in some cases, just have to be careful with attribution. The article has a good overview of the field of criticism. Earflaps (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was biased, other than in line with science and reality. But then Wikipedia proudly has that same bias too. Alexbrn (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I would agree a reputable skeptic's voice tends to be useful for parity, particularly when they are in expert in the field independently - I more meant that Salon is uncurably biased in favor of scandals and hit-grabbing headlines :b Earflaps (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)