Talk:Daniel Amen

Citation style

The citation style for this article is settled, and should not be changed without prior consensus. See WP:CITEVAR. Alexbrn (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge of Amen Clinics revisited

Note that the editor who decided that there was no consensus to merge Amen Clinics into this article was yet another socking paid editor: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeremy112233/Archive. We should probably revisit that. SmartSE (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Would be a good consolidation. Alexbrn (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Documenting their marriage

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)

I find it weird to talk about people's families in WP articles but Ok. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 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)

Also, would you please explain why this ref is an RS? Based on the home page is appears to be WP:USERGENERATED... i may be wrong about that... Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" is not justified.

Here are 2 very important points related to my change:

• According to Category:Pseudoscience:

  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.

Here is the current lead of this article:

Daniel Gregory Amen (born 1954)^[2] is an American psychiatrist,^[3] a brain disorder specialist,^[4] director of the Amen Clinics,^[5] and a ten-times New York Times bestselling author.^[6]

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.^[7] However, Amen's methodology has been criticized by psychiatrists and neuroscientists on ethical and safety grounds.^[8][9]

Amen has studied brain injuries affecting professional athletes,^[4] and he is a post-concussion consultant for the National Football League.^[10]

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... [or] 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 ([0][1][2][3][4]), 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.

I will wait 2 days for a proper rebuttal, and then make the edit again in the absence of one. Mfwitten (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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.[0][1] In May I restored the word "illegal" which had been used to describe an illegal drug.[2] 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.[3] 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.[4] 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.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] where you were reverted by FreeKnowledgeCreator, Bonadea, Nagualdesign, and MPants at work. Edward321 (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that the above is a proper rebuttal. I'd have just reverted.-Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:54, 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)

I agree totally with that. This section, however, is about the applicability of Category:Pseudoscience to a biography. I admit I have no strong feelings either way, but I do see Mfwitten's point. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Given the absence of a proper rebuttal, I've removed the category in question. Mfwitten (talk) 03:29, 2 March 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)

A consensus of one isn't really a consensus now, is it? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 04:25, 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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell 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)

Stop arguing this before you get indeffed. You're really digging your own grave with this aggressive bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You realize the extreme irony of your reply, right? And, also, the irrelevance? Mfwitten (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Taking a look at Category:Pseudoscience, it is supposed to be applied to articles about pseudoscientific theories, which means that it would not apply to this article. The correct category for this article would be Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. Edward321 (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Come on, Edward. Note the very first sentence from Category:Advocates of pseudoscience:

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 Category:Pseudoscience. For example, since Category:Astrology is categorized under Category:Pseudoscience, the corresponding Category:Astrologers is a subcategory here.

Mfwitten (talk) 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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Note the top of Category:Pseudoscientific psychologists:

About [Category:Pseudoscientific psychologists] and related categories: This category's scope contains articles about Pseudoscience, which may be a contentious label.

According to "a contentious label":

Words to watch: cult, racist, perverted, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, bigot, myth, neo-Nazi, -gate, pseudo-, controversial, ...

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution…

The prefix pseudo‑ indicates that something is false or spurious, which may be debatable. The suffix ‑gate suggests the existence of a major scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Gamergate controversy), with in-text attribution if in doubt…

With regard to the term "pseudoscience": per the policy Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources.

Yet, the word "pseudo" doesn't appear even once in the entire article, and I doubt "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific psychologist" or anything at all jumps to mind when most people encounter the name of the subject of this article. Therefore, as the article stands, and by the very description of the category in question (including explicit points of policy), this article should not be included in Category:Pseudoscientific psychologists.

You have 24 hours to correct the problem (remove the category, or fix the article); if the inconsistency is not corrected by that time, then it will be assumed that you are in agreement, and the category will be removed. Mfwitten (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mfwitten: As I stated on your talk page, if you revert again without gaining clear consensus then I will topic ban you from the article. Furthermore, any more arbitrary deadline nonsense will also result in a topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

And, as I stated on your talk page, you provide no definition of "clear consensus". Allow me to remind you:

Define consensus, Neil.

• Why should disputed material remain in place for any given side, especially when some material is officially noted to be regarded as "pejorative"?
• Especially, why should vacuous "I disagree." rebuttals override logical arguments with explicit references and comparisons?

Mfwitten (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mfwitten: I'm not going to argue with you about your misrepresentations. You can either follow my advice about WP:DRR or be topic banned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

So, basically... "I disagree." Mfwitten (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You see, what logic does is it allows the discussion to rely on previously established consensus. What I've done here is produce a sizable body of evidence for the fact that consensus is already on my side; waiting for people to meet the deduced consensus ("In 24 hours...") is merely a courtesy. It is not enough just to say "I disagree" (especially without a time limit). Mfwitten (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You have produced no evidence whatsoever. You have yet to post a single source that discusses Amen. Nor have you presented sound logic. You have completely ignored every response you've gotten, and ignored such well-documented community guidelines as WP:CONSENSUS and WP:V, as well as ignoring and leaving out every exception given in those policies which you have quoted. You have tried to twist almost every response you have gotten into something which it was never intended to be, just so you can pretend to not have to respond to it.

The only logic you could possibly present at this point is logic that shows that each and every one of the sources below (including those which I haven't listed, as well as every reliable source calling him a practitioner of pseudomedicine that is not used in this article) is wrong or unreliable. You haven't even tried to do that. The only evidence you could present would be reliable sources explicitly denying that Amen is a practitioner of pseudomedicine. You haven't even tried to do that, either. Instead, you have wailed on the same exact dead horse that gets wailed on by every single True Believer who comes to the bio page of their favorite pusher of woo. Before anyone is called "pseudo-" anything, there needs to be sources of sufficient quality to overcome WP:BLP and WP:WEASEL concerns. What this means is that we need impeccably high-quality sources that make no quibbles about it. Sources, in other words, exactly like [9], [10], [11], [12] and [13] which are already used in the article for this express purpose. Among others.

You have yet to do anything except take an overly combative approach to making a disruptive and unsound argument, alienating everyone who might otherwise be willing to help you, or at least listen to your concerns, and you've continued to blatantly ignore the fact that this argument was lost the moment those sources were added to the article, just so you can pretend to have a leg to stand on. You've done absolutely nothing here except make a nuisance out of yourself. Enough is enough. You've been warned multiple times about your behavior, you've been blocked for your behavior. How many times do you need to run face-first into a wall before you stop running blindly? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Attempted whitewashing

I've reverted a series of edits which made some substantial chanegs to the article. In particular, the changes to the lead completely changed the tone, and made it no longer summarise the rest of the article. Given the history of this article, it is very hard to believe this is not yet another attempt to whitewash. SmartSE (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - I looked at the Talk page but didn't look at the date to realize the pseudoscience discussion was so recent. I can understand the sensitivity. I know that SPECT and PET scans have been used clinically pretty regularly now, so I was surprised when it was criticized in the article. When I updated the page I realized that all of the criticisms were from 2012 or earlier, which is kind of a long time ago for this stuff. The newer journal articles now only discuss how to standardize the procedure (which is still an issue along with radiation), but the utility is not really argued. The Amen stub was written in a way that sounded to a lay person like he gave the patient a SPECT scan and then read the diagnosis from the SPECT. This isn't the way that it is normally used, nor the way Amen describes it. He describes it as another tool that should be used by physicians for a correct diagnosis and treatment; specifically, what in a psychiatric condition can be ascribed to legitimate brain damage or disease. The fact that he makes all patients undergo the procedure is a bit of a fishing expedition on his part, which leads to the main (legitimate) criticism about unnecessary radiation exposure, which I kept. I used his own peer-reviewed journal articles as sources. The article is written in a way that maligns SPECT as a diagnosis tool for brain disorders, which is simply wrong. I changed the article to reflect this, while maintaining the criticisms that performing it on every patient is probably unwarranted by the Amen Clinics. However, all of the articles saying it isn't ready for use in clinics are outdated, which is to be expected in science.Blacklist21 (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)