Talk:Daniel Amen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removal of sourced content[edit]

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[edit]

I will be adding material from a peer-reviewed scientific journal article per 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 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 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. 
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: 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?[edit]

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

Undue and primary[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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:

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

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)