Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::'''This is a container category, which must ''not'' include articles.''' Its purpose is to group sub-categories of people who advocate areas currently included under ]. For example, since ] is categorized under ], the corresponding ] is a subcategory here.
::'''This is a container category, which must ''not'' include articles.''' Its purpose is to group sub-categories of people who advocate areas currently included under ]. For example, since ] is categorized under ], the corresponding ] is a subcategory here.
:] (]) 06:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
:] (]) 06:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
*Mfwitten, how much time have you spent blocked already for edit warring over this stuff? You say it's ironic that I would warn you that you're heading towards being blocked indefinitely, and to that I say that you apparently haven't the slightest idea what "irony" means. Seriously. You need to stop '''arguing''' and start '''discussing'''. Yes, you've managed to make a point about the categories, but your approach is still a major problem. Calm down, take a step back and relax. None of this is important. This is just our mutual hobby. Now, I've changed the category over to the most appropriate one. Please don't continue to revert everyone on this article. In the end, it's not going to hurt any of us, only you. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 18:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Revision as of 18:16, 3 March 2018
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Daniel Amen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article was nominated for deletion on 9 December 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
27century (talk·contribs) has been paid by Rachel G. on behalf of Daniel Amen. Their editing has included contributions to this article.
They talk about it all the time and write about it in their books, but maybe we need to look for more reputable sites and succinct ways to documents (a) date of marriage, September 6, 2008; (b) career and credentials of Tana Amen, BSN; and (c) name of daughter, Chloe. MaynardClark (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
this is all ... getting creepy. There is no reason to go into this level of detail about with respect to details about people in his family. And you added a date for his birth but that was not in any source you cited. . Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
This category comprises well-known topics that are generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology) and topics that have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth). The pejorative term itself is contested by various groups for various reasons. Generally speaking, if an article belongs in this category, the article's lead will contain a well-sourced statement that the subject is considered pseudoscience.
Amen's clinics specialize in the use of brain imaging equipment (single photon emission computed tomography SPECT) which are marketed as being of use in diagnosing psychiatric disorders. However, Amen's methodology has been criticized by psychiatrists and neuroscientists on ethical and safety grounds.
Clearly, there is no citation or even mention of "pseudoscience" there. And, obviously, nothing about this person can be considered commensurate with "obviously pseudoscientific" subjects "such as astrology... modern belief in a flat Earth". Indeed, the word fragment "pseudoscien" doesn't appear anywhere in this article. Furthermore, I doubt the subject of this article is among the world's "well-known topics".
That is to say, this article does not meet the very explicit requirements for being included in Category:Pseudoscience, and thus it should be removed from this category, at least as far as the content of this article currently stands. Feel free to find citations to justify its inclusion.
Based on the above logic, I first attempted to remove this article from Category:Pseudoscience on 2018-02-09T04:58:59; my change was reverted by Edward321, a user who had never edited this article in its entire 10+ year history, and a user who provided no reasoning for the reversion. In fact, the only connection that I can find between this article and Edward321 is me: Edward321 has edited the Graham Hancock article (), where he has specialized in maintaining certain pejorative statements that label the subject of that article to be "pseudoscientific" in nature; I was temporarily banned for engaging in an edit war with regard to these pejorative statements, and it does not seem implausible that Edward321 followed me here to this article, especially given that he reverted my edit shortly after I was temporarily banned.
I assumed that disinterested editors had had their fun with regard to the unrelated edit war, and so I attempted to remove Category:Pseudoscience once again on 2018-02-17T17:16:18. This time, it was reverted by Bonadea, who has also never edited this article in its entire 10+ year history. Indeed, the only connection that I could find between this article and that user is once again me, and once again via Graham Hancock. Bonadea was the user with whom I most directly wrangled and who probably led to my ban for edit warring on Graham Hancock; in his comment about this latest reversion, his main point seems to be reminding me about our edit war, rather than discussing the article in question.
In short, it is justified to remove this article from Category:Pseudoscience, and it has never been justified to include it in that category; furthermore, the editors who have reverted this removal have dubious motives.
There are plenty of citations already in this article to justify to justify the category psuedoscience. Two are in the very section you quote. There are several additional sources under the sections "SPECT scanning", "Ethics of SPCT scanning", "Dietary suppliments", "Writing", "Television programs", and "Reception of ideas" showing that Amen's views are not supported by scientific evidence, which is clearly psuedoscience. You also claim that in the Graham Hancock article I "specialized in maintaining certain pejorative statements that label the subject of that article to be "pseudoscientific" in nature". First, Hanccock's theories are clearly psuedoscientific, as is clearly sourced in that article. Second, the links you provide do not support your accusations about me. There is a clear note in the article that the word "unscienific" is "NPOV. Do not change it to softer words (e.g., unconventional) or it will be reverted". To maintain that long-established consensus, I restored the word "unscientific" in June and July of last year. In May I restored the word "illegal" which had been used to describe an illegal drug. In December of 2016, I removed the unsourced claim that Hancock had done promotional material for a Somali dictator, which was the removal of an unsourced pejorative claim. The last edit you try to use use as "evidence" against me is my October 2016 restoring of the link to Orion correlation theory in the section about the Orion correlation theory. Your edits on the Graham Hancck page have consisted of removing the accurate negative description of Hancock's theories multiple times is a single day. where you were reverted by FreeKnowledgeCreator, Bonadea, Nagualdesign, and MPants at work. Edward321 (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
No, only the first three sentences of that reply above is actually about this article; the rest is about behavior and another article entirely. That isn't a proper rebuttal. A proper rebuttal would have addressed the actual category description and how it applies to a biography. It didn't.
Mfwitten has a point. The article makes no mention of pseudoscience (even if the sources do), and the subject of the article is a biography. The biography isn't pseudoscience, and doesn't fit into the category description. Not all of what the subject practices is pseudoscience, just the bit about using SPECT for diagnosis and treatment. Perhaps the category should go on the SPECT article. At most, the paragraph in this article about SPECT should mention pseudoscience if sources describe it that way, but I still don't see that mention as a qualification of categorizing a biography of a living person as a pseudoscience article. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Amen is very similar to Chopra and Oz in being celebrity doctors who regularly spew loads of quackery into the world, going way, way beyond the evidence on their way to making lots of money. Amen is somewhat worse with his hard selling of SPECT as this exposes people to radiation (unlike say Oz and his green coffee beans, which are just a waste of money). SPECT itself is not pseudoscience; the claims for what it is good made by Amen, are. Whether this page should have the "pseudoscience" category or not isn't that important to me; what is important is that the article is very clear that there is bad medicine here. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog just reverted my change, without justification. You have 24 hours to produce a proper justification, and then it'll be assumed that you have none. Mfwitten (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
what an odd thing to say. You need to get consensus to make the change; we don't operate here by deadlines and demands. Consensus is not clear in the discussion above. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no aspect of existence that avoids deadlines or demands; indeed, in this case, consensus would be a worthless concept without them—you could just disagree and then dissolve into the ether, thereby imposing your will on others.
Anyway, as previously discussed, it can be deduced rather directly that this article is not about a subject of pseudoscience and should therefore not be categorized as such; of course, feel free to incorporate into the article a discussion of the subject's relationship to pseudoscience (if properly cited).
You have 24 hours to explain why this article should be categorized as "pseudoscience" (or, rather, why that category's definition should be altered to make such a categorization sensible). Should you fail to do so, then it must be assumed there is little conviction or merit behind your behavior, and I will make the change once more; if you revert the change again without justification, I may report you for disruptive behavior and for deliberately ignoring good-faith attempts at achieving consensus. Mfwitten (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I do not support the removal of Category:Pseudoscience from this article, nor do I support removal or softening of any language. In fact, I support strengthening the language in this article by showing where the sources refer to his practices as pseudoscientific. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.05:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Does logic mean nothing? So far, only the argument for removal has been based on an explicit reference and analysis of the definition of the category in question. It's not enough just to say "I do not support the removal"—that is not a sufficient rebuttal. Either rise to the occasion, or admit (perhaps tacitly) that there is no valid argument for such a categorization. Make up a new category, if you wish; alter the existing category. Whatever you propose, though, must make for a consistent whole. Mfwitten (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Mfwitten, how much time have you spent blocked already for edit warring over this stuff? You say it's ironic that I would warn you that you're heading towards being blocked indefinitely, and to that I say that you apparently haven't the slightest idea what "irony" means. Seriously. You need to stop arguing and start discussing. Yes, you've managed to make a point about the categories, but your approach is still a major problem. Calm down, take a step back and relax. None of this is important. This is just our mutual hobby. Now, I've changed the category over to the most appropriate one. Please don't continue to revert everyone on this article. In the end, it's not going to hurt any of us, only you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
