Jump to content

Talk:Daniel Amen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreslough (talk | contribs) at 11:13, 18 August 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RFC: List of journal articles

See box. Formerip (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Survey

Support

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • No per MrBill3 -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose per MrBill3. Amen is not a scholar. He's a 'businessman.' SW3 5DL (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Daily Telegraph article

I have a concern about the Daily Telegraph article. The quotations or statements lifted from the DT piece and added to the Amen article are uniformly negative, even though the DT author, Sanjiv Bhattacharya, DID give Amen's point of view within his piece, relating in Amen's rather forceful terms exactly why Amen uses SPECT analyses. The particular quotations from the DT piece now extant in our article do not add any new information for our readers — they more or less simply repeat the charges that other critics have leveled against Amen's practices. So, hm, I think they should all be removed. They are excessive and are not in keeping with Wikipedia as a neutral source of information. In the meantime, I will be identifying Bhattacharya as the author, but I will probably just delete the excerpts (later) as part of WP:BRD, unless I can be persuaded they should stay in. Thanks for your attention. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You had objected to the summary statement, "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." The material from the Daily Telegraph article are explicitly clear support for that statement. It is clearly noted that Amen's critics include "mental health and imaging experts" to wit, "his critics – many representing major institutions such as the American Psychiatric Association" the content added is directly from the article and is attributed to these critics. The criticism from representatives of major institutions carries considerable weight and is WP:DUE per NPOV. The statements of why someone uses SPECT from an individual who seeks to continue profiting from doing so while ""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 etc" carry very, very little due weight. NPOV is clear that the mainstream academic and scientific views should be predominant and fringe ideas not given undue weight, to wit, "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." The content from representatives of major institutions in the Daily Telegraph is clearly due considerably more weight than Amen's views. Your attribution neglects to point out whom the critics represent and falsely attempts to portray the criticism as coming from "a journalist". We don't need to attribute the authorship of an article in a major newspaper unless the content is the opinion of the author the appropriate attribution is to the publication with a reputation for fact checking and editorial control. The article was not an opinion piece by Bhattacharya it reported the widely held and widely supported views of Amen. Those views carry the weight, not Amen's self interested minority proclamations. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I'm sorry, what is the source of the phrase "unless the content is the opinion of the author"? (2) I didn't mean to imply that the adverse criticism of Amen was "coming from" a journalist, only that it was "reported by" a particular journalist (whose bio one can look up on Wikipedia as kind of a gauge of his reputation). (3) I can understand the opposition to removing all of Bhattacharya's reporting (I guess I went too far there, so I take it back), but how about reducing the negativity and adding in some of the positive stuff from his piece as a counterweight? Couldn't we agree on that? GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1)WP:NPOV § WP:ASSERT - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It widely accepted practice on WP that an inline citation provides adequate attribution. Take a look at featured articles or good articles and note that naming the author of an article is rare in text. The standard is to use inline citations. We generally don't identify something as reported by a journalist, we give the ref. Inline citations are listed in policy as acceptable attribution. The need for in text attribution arises when the content is not factual but an opinion. This is fairly clear not only from examples but in WP:V, WP:CS and WP:ATT. Both the content from the Daily Telegraph and from Farah & Gillhan are given as facts for which inline references are adequate according to the verifiability policy.
I can't agree on any "counterweight" that is not WP:DUE per NPOV. Read the NPOV policy and identify what you think is due. The mainstream academic consensus and Amen's assertions should balanced according to WP core policy not an editor's idea of counterweight. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "balanced," then. One usually balances a scale with a weight on one side and a counterweight on the other. But I don't aim to quarrel, only to make the article more representative of the man and of his ideas. I hope others agree. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP does not practice "balance" based on editors' ideas, we represent what is said in the reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. As an encyclopedia we don't adjust our articles to be more representative of how editors or the subject view the man and his ideas, we present what has been published in reliable sources about the man and his ideas with content, proportion and prominence based on the NPOV policy particularly the section on due and undue weight.
Statements made as facts in reliable sources don't need to be given in text attribution a footnote citation is almost always what is used for a peer reviewed journal article or chapter in a scholarly book (the editorial decision of the editor of the book to include the content and the publisher [OUP] are provided by the footnote but not by an in text attribution), not an in text attribution to an author. See the section of NPOV "Assert" regarding attribution in text. "We do not write: "According to the Daily Telegraph, the capital of France is Paris" because doing so would create the impression of doubt or disagreement where there is none." If you think there is doubt about any facts asserted in the article, provide sources that carry some weight that express such doubt.
If you don't think a particular source is reliable for a particular fact, the procedure is to take it to the reliable sources notice board, not remove the fact. "Most patients do not realise that the SPECT scans rely on unproven claims." is a fact from a reliable source if you don't think the source is reliable for the fact take it to RSN. See the Verifiability policy. I think you'll find the source more than meets the standard and provides guidance on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard as well as the guideline Identifying reliable sources.
I appreciate your statement that you don't aim to quarrel but the fact that core policy is explained repeatedly on this talk page strains good faith. We are not talking about interpretations of obscure essays. This is stuff straight from the three core policies in particular the WP:DUE and WP:ASSERT sections of WP:NPOV have been explained more than once here. These policies are quite clear and basic to editing WP where competence is required. Please make edits, proposals and arguments based on policy not the opinions of an editor and back them up with sources. As is said in the Five Pillars, "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." Sorry for the tone but I am getting rather frustrated. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:GeorgeLouis - you seem to be taking a strong interest in this article, all of the sudden. May I ask you to disclose any potential conflict of interests you have with this particular piece? You have lots of great historical articles work, but I'm a little concerned about your work with articles with long histories of COI. Always after the COI's been going on a while. CombatThisss (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Amen&oldid=621759037"