Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:20, 2 July 2014

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 31 days

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. Biography 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. Psychology Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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. 69.178.132.146 (talk · contribs)

Infomercials aired on PBS self produced and used for fundraising

I have restored the link to Self-publishing and the wording back to self-produced. Multiple sources go to some length to explain Amen produced these videos himself and not PBS so this is a fact that is supported by the sources, it is emphasized by several sources. The article Self-publishing refers to other media and explains the lack of involvement by an established third party publisher, the fact that no established third party was involved in producing the videos is something in multiple sources. Not a huge deal, just wanted to explain undoing anothers edit and allow for discussion if necessary. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Multiple sources mention that these shows are aired during fundraising drives, I added a new one that is very specific about these programs being used to raise/make money (Hall, 2009). - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if we can agree to remove this section temporarily in order to rewrite it to make it more balanced? Amen has replied at http://www.salon.com/2008/05/12/amen_response/, and we really should include his remarks. What do you say? Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in his response that addresses the content. What is in the article currently is well sourced, I don't think it needs to be removed. Amen's remarks can be considered and added as WP:DUE, I don't know what weight they carry on what subject, but he is a good source for what he says. As the current content is well sourced and reasonably stable, might I suggest proposing changes here? I think that's more in keeping with policy then removing sourced content. Of course if you come up with something you consider strong, in policy and well sourced you may edit boldly. I think working on a proposed change here is better.

As I read it there are 5 (or 6) facts in the section 1)self produced, in other words, no publisher oversight or connection with PBS in production or content 2)aired on PBS for fundraising 3)described as infomercials 4)PBS criticized for airing them 5)PBS made official reply not endorsing and attributing responsibility for airing to local stations.

What would you seek to add, remove or modify? The criticism for airing them is primarily based on the creation of endorsement, the responses have been, not vetted by a particular station and not endorsed by the network. If anything needs further explanation that would be it.

Amen's response contains significant medical claims that would need MEDRS evaluation. For example "The most significant benefit to using natural supplements is that they often work for mild to moderate problems. Natural supplements have fewer side effects than most medications and they are significantly less expensive." The quality science does not concur so his comments not subject to editorial oversight bear no weight except to provide an example of continued unsupported or inaccurate claims. Likewise with SPECT there are top level MEDRS sources that contradict what he asserts.

Amen as an evaluator of QuackWatch is not appropriate for this article and bears little weight, this has been extensively discussed on WP and by considerably weightier sources than the websites he points to.

What content would you propose to include from his response? - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, since we didn't get consensus to discuss any changes on this Talk Page, I have simply taken the section as it stands and beefed it up with corrections (where needed) and with exact quotes (where needed). I've thus toned down the generalizations (of which there were a few) and pinned the facts and opinions on the people or articles stating the facts or giving their opinions. I carefully gave my reasons in the Edit Summaries for each specific change, so kindly consider them if you want to make emendations directly on the page or if you want to discuss anything here. I hope to make this a better article. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the increased specificity is a help. I think the fact that PBS played no editorial part in producing the television shows is important and it has been discussed explicitly in the sources. Carroll, "No PBS station anywhere had anything to do with the production of Amen's program." Burton, "Why is PBS airing Dr. Daniel Amen's self-produced infomercial" and "In fact, 'Change Your Brain, Change Your Life' was neither produced nor distributed by PBS headquarters." The PBS Ombudsman stated, "But I do think that PBS and the member stations are failing to fulfill an obligation to viewers to make absolutely clear — in unmistakable ways either visually on screen or spoken — that these are not PBS programs, that PBS does not vet them or distribute them." So clearly the fact that these are not PBS programs is information that is important and PBS itself has realized that not making this clear is innapropriate.

Giving the number of critics who identified his television shows as infomercials is not necessary or accurate at this point, first at least three critics have done so in published sources Burton, Carroll and Insel, second the Washington Post stated "critics call them informercials" and The Telegraph stated, "But at the other pole, his critics – many representing major institutions such as the American Psychiatric Association — label him a snake oil huckster who preys on the afflicted. They liken him to a self-help guru rather than a scientist, on account of all the books, DVDs and nutritional supplements which he hawks so shamelessly on infomercials." and third if you look at the complaints to PBS that have been published on their site here you will see that numerous people have used that description. That clearly makes "described by two of Amen's critics" not factual and somewhat misleading. As a point of fact The Telegraph stated, "his critics – many representing major institutions such as the American Psychiatric Association... They liken him...which he hawks so shamelessly on infomercials." That would be a RS stating "critics - many" and "infomercials". - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is the to The Telegraph's story. The author, Sanjiv Bhattacharya, mentions "infomercials," but he is not very specific about them. Anyway, he also has some positive things to say about Amen, and he quotes him directly. Right now I think the paragraph is pretty well balanced, but if there are inaccuracies, just correct them there and see if they stand the test of time. That's what I would do. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the current content is misleading. Far more than two critics have called these programs informercials. This is clear from multiple sources (three explicit not two) provided above and the description in the full quote from the story in The Telegraph given above ("critics...many...they...infomercials" all within two consecutive sentences). The issue that PBS endorsement and involvement was implied and not clearly disavowed was problematic to multiple sources and the PBS ombudsman made a significant statement, quoted above (PBS..stations...failing...obligation...make absolutely clear...not PBS programs). The current content does not reflect the controversy and PBS response accurately. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Writing and ideas reversion

On 16:41, 20 May 2014 the user Alexbrn reverted several edits I made to the "Writing and ideas" section of the page. I had added the following to the beginning of the section:

Amen has 44 peer reviewed publications listed on Pubmed. Amen’s work has been cited a total of 1,534 times with an h-index of 18 (18 publications with at least 18 citations each). He has also published on the potential brain benefits of supplements and the negative impact of obesity on brain function.

I feel these edits should remain on the page for the following reasons:

- The first two edits help frame the Writing and ideas section as they sum up Amen's writing history.

- The first two edits are also acceptable as "Routine Calculations" which is allowed under wikipedia policy (see https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:CALC#Routine_calculations)

- The final edit is acceptable because, while it does rely on primary source material as Alexbrn pointed out, the edit "only makes descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." (see https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Attribution)

Dmrwikiprof (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't quite see why these simple statements of fact should not be in the article, although I might delete "peer-reviewed" as being superfluous, and I would explain what Pubmed is — "a free search engine accessing primarily the MEDLINE database of references and abstracts on life sciences and biomedical topics." What is disputed about this material? The statements are either true or not true. In puzzlement, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's undue/original research. Do any secondary sources cover this stuff, or is it just proposed here on the say-so of a Misplaced Pages editor? Alexbrn 17:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If we mention research on the potential benefit of supplements per due the leading research on supplements must be presented as due (that would diminish the significance of Amen's paper to nil). Likewise obesity and brain function, what do the MEDRS quality sources say on the subject?

Do reliable sources consider 44 publications to be notable? Likewise an h index of 18? I think in the field this is not notable, without RS saying it is, it should go. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. The number of citations in journals is pretty crucial to understanding the life of a researcher, whether they are four or forty-four. Since this is a WP:Biography of a living person, that number is an important part of the subject's professional bio, couldn't we agree? Whether it is notable or not, or whether the doctor's contributions mean anything at all, well, the readers can determine for themselves. All Misplaced Pages is supposed to do is to report the facts, not comment on them. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

WP reports the facts as published in reliable secondary sources. If published sources don't discuss something WP editors don't generally gather and present information, it borders on OR and Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Inclusion of information that isn't considered notable or significant by published sources can also be considered WP:wikipuffery. My take is usually if RS doesn't put something forth as notable/significant it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. I think this is broadly supported in the PAG. It's not a huge issue to me so I won't fight consensus (if it comes). - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the WP:Essay on WP:Wikipuffery, which I had not seen before. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Details in the lead

I propose deleting the following from the WP:Lead because they are overly detailed and best left for the body of the article. Any objections? "He was born in Encino, California. He received his undergraduate degree from Southern California College in 1978 and his doctorate from Oral Roberts University School of Medicine in 1982.." Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. I am a fan of concision (despite my TLDR tendencies). Also a supporter of BOLD editing (when policy and source based). - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Publications Section

I'd like to talk about the value (or lack thereof) of having a list of scholarly article publications on Amen's wiki page here. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead: be sure to base your proposals on Misplaced Pages's policies & guidelines. Alexbrn 19:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In particular, WP:DUE and WP:OR are relevant. Have the papers you've discussed in secondary sources (not just cited)? If not then it's original research to include them here as it is your judgement (and not a source's) that they are important. SmartSE (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand what the above two editors are getting at, but if adding a list of works, even minor ones, to articles about published authors is against WP:Policy, well, I have never seen that interpretation spelled out elsewhere. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

First the heading "scholarly" is not appropriate on WP if there is any secondary support to include it should be journal articles. If Amen is notable as a researcher his publications will be discussed in secondary sources. A criteria for inclusion needs to be established and those generally used are discussion in secondary sources or highly cited. This is another way editors work in puffery often. (scholarly articles... see he's scholarly!) Subjects who are known as researchers of significance have their work discussed in multiple secondary sources, their contributions to the field are identified in secondary sources. Just having been published does not make one a notable researcher, publication does not make ones work significant. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Have to agree with GeorgeLouis here. Including a list of works seems to be consistent with other wiki pages and practices - see the "Works" section on the Neil deGrasse Tyson page for example. Though I also think that MrBill3 makes a good point that scholarly sounds like puffery. Maybe we just use the heading "Research publications" instead of "Scholarly articles" similar to Mr. deGrasse Tyson's page. Perhaps US News could give some guidance as to which of Amen's works are notable: http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

So how many sources discuss deGrasse Tyson as a researcher? How many discuss his published work? How many discuss Amen's publications as a researcher? What publications by deGrasse Tyson have been noted as making a contribution to his field? If you read the review of Amen's book the reviewer states ""has not subjected his treatment approaches to the level of systematic scientific scrutiny expected for scientifically based medical practice." That doesn't sound like saying he has done important and good research in fact quite the contrary. If we have secondary sources that discuss the significance or contribution Amen has made as a researcher there might be some support for include a bibliographic list of research work. If we give the weight to Amen's publications it must be as due per secondary sources. There should be content discussing his work rather than a list of it with no indication of there reception, context or contribution. Perhaps a paragraph introducing the proposed list of journal articles with the evaluation/reception they have gotten.

The "US News" site you list is not RS it is self published content by the doctors listed with no editorial oversight or fact checking. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the position of the editor just above, but isn't the simple fact that Amen has had articles published in scholarly journals a WP:Notable fact about him? It would seem so because "In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals" (Misplaced Pages:OR#Reliable_sources). I agree that scholarly is not the right word, a bit precious. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

With between 1,200,000 and 2,500,000 peer reviewed articles published each year I would have to say no, having published articles is not notable. This is also one of the reasons WP does not include non notable papers in content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I would leave it out as well for now. --Malerooster (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Rather than becoming engaged in an WP:Edit war, shall we ask for additional input from other editors? In the meantime, consider this advice from Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lists of works, Would that change anybody's mind?

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) 18:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The quote from Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lists of works is more than convincing evidence that the list of articles should be included. Peer-reviewed journals are already considered a reliable source (Misplaced Pages:OR#Reliable_sources) and all of Amen's articles listed are from peer-reviewed journals. Also, to answer the editor's question above: "How many discuss his published work?" -- All of Amen's articles that were listed were cited 22 times or more by other journals. This is more than enough to establish that a list would be WP:Notable. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Further reading

Items listed in further reading do not have to be available by link. A full citation allows readers who are interested to find the item at a library, bookstore or other resource. In general dead links are tagged not removed as many if not most can be repaired. Removing them buries them in the edit history, tagging them notifies editors who work on link rot so they can be fixed. Removal of content because it (or the reference for it) is not available online is not in keeping with policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Widely criticized (sources?)

Regarding this sentence, which I have just removed: "The validity of SPECT comparisons for aiding diagnosis, or to guide treatment, is not supported by research and is widely criticized by mental health and medical imaging experts.": I did not see anything in either of the sources using the search words "widely" and "critic." Did I miss something? It seems that a past editor might have written the sentence and then looked around and found two examples to back it up, but that's not the way it should be done. If indeed either of these two sources said anything remotely like "The validity of SPECT comparisons for aiding diagnosis, or to guide treatment, is not supported by research and is widely criticized by mental health and medical imaging experts," just point it out and restore what needs to be restored. Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the sources? They contain (among much else, which the text you removed summarizes fairly) "The lack of empirical validation has led to widespread condemnation of diagnostic SPECT as premature and unproven". Alexbrn 09:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to remove cited content and change content without reading the sources referenced. Changes that cause the content not to acurately reflect the sources are not appropriate. The article was well sourced and cited, the content reflected the sources clearly and fairly. There is no justification for changing content. If you think the sources are not accurately represented point out what is misrepresented using the sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that one must read the sources, which of course I did. That's why I asked for elucidation. Thanks for pointing out that sentence, ""The lack of empirical validation has led to widespread condemnation of diagnostic SPECT as premature and unproven." I'll be using that when I rejigger that paragraph. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've replaced the disputed material by using the exact words of the two sources, as follows: 'According to cognitive neuroscience researcher Martha Farah and psychologist S. J. Gillihan, "The lack of empirical validation has led to widespread condemnation of diagnostic SPECT as premature and unproven," and the American Psychiatric Association has stated that "at present the use of brain imaging to study psychiatric disorders is still considered a research tool."' Hope this is satisfactory to all. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Generally, we should paraphrase content rather than quote verbatim. Since the condemnation of Amen's activities is not in serious dispute that fact should simply be asserted: doing otherwise, and attributing the view, makes it unduly seem like we have here a mere difference of opinion, and that implication is not neutral, especially since we are dealing with a WP:FRINGE idea. 19:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

But Misplaced Pages articles must not contain WP:original research:

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. (Emphasis supplied.)

The conclusion not stated by the sources is that ""The validity of SPECT comparisons for aiding diagnosis, or to guide treatment, is not supported by research and is widely criticized by mental health and medical imaging experts." I expect that this more accurate wording that I have suggested will be supported by the WP community in light of the WP:Policy that requires it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording is much more akin to original research and far less accurate than the proposed changes because the current wording implies a conclusion that is much more bright-lined than the sources indicate. The current wording suggests that using SPECT for aiding diagnosis is not supported at all. To the contrary, the actual sources seem to indicate that SPECT presents at least some usefulness when it is used as a "research tool." Also, the current wording seems to condemn SPECT on the whole, when the actual sources seem to indicate that diagnostic SPECT is not widely criticized on the whole, just regarded as premature and unproven. The proposed wording is more specific and describes the conclusions stated in the sources more clearly. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe DMR is correct, but everyone is entitled to his own interpretation of what the sources "indicate." What we can't disagree on is what the sources actually say. And that's what WP should be using in its articles, and that's what my suggested edit would limit itself to. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no original research here. The paraphrased text fairly, accurately and with restraint represents the sources – more accurately than plucking out just one phrase. We must summarize source material in our words as much as possible. Alexbrn 12:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

With due respect to all editors, WP cannot make a blanket representation based upon simply two sources, so I have restored the version without it, here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Shrug* - we relay what reliable sources say, and assert facts. We especially take care to make sure fringe notions are clearly identified as such. These are core policies. You are edit-warring against the grain of those policies and making the article less informative & neutral. Alexbrn 14:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Tip of the hat . . .

Thanks to all the editors who have worked on this article for the fulsome Edit summaries they have been using recently in the process. It really helps to explain reasons for changes, since they are not always obvious. I for one appreciate it. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sourced material removed

This edit diff removed sourced material that clearly supported the previously contested content and was direct from the source. The proposed text does not reflect the widespread lack of acceptance which policy requires us to present.

This edit diff also removed sourced content.

This edit diff had an edit summary that was plainly untrue, the quote provided with the source provided the numbers given in the article.

Removal of sourced content is not in keeping with policy, particularly without consensus on the talk page.

Sources were provided and the content was added in direct response to the claim that the content,

"The validity of SPECT comparisons for aiding diagnosis, or to guide treatment, is not supported by research and is widely criticized by mental health and medical imaging experts."

was not supported by the sources.

The content added,

"According to an article in The Washington Post, "Officials at major psychiatric and neuroscience associations and research centers say his SPECT claims are no more than myth and poppycock, buffaloing an unsuspecting public. 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..."

clearly supports the previously contested summary. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=amen+d
2. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3A%22daniel+amen%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
3. Adv Mind Body Med. 2013 Spring;27(2):24-33.
4. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011 May;19(5):1095-7. doi: 10.1038/oby.2011.16. Epub 2011 Feb 10

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class psychology articles
• Low-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Start-Class medicine articles
• Unknown-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Articles with connected contributors