Talk:Daniel Amen/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Neurologist?

According to the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology's Certification and Status Verification System, the U.S. News & World Report webpage cited in our article, and the Amen Clinics webpage, Amen only holds certificates in Psychiatry and Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. We need a source showing the doctor is a certified neurologist if we are going to say he's a neurologist in the article. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to look further down on the US News and World Report page on Dr. Amen--

It says the following,

Certifications & Licensure:

American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology

Certified in Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology

Certified in Psychiatry

2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually now that I look at that I'm not sure. Does it mean he is qualified in Neurology as it applies to Child & Adolescent Psychiatry?

Or is "Neurology" just a part of the boards name and he is just a Psychiatrist?

I see your point and would not put "Neurologist" back up there unless there are other citations.

2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I would not say that this settles the issue, but this Psychology Today article says that the psychiatry and neurology are extremely similar and only differ by the following--

"Nothing differentiates the training of those interested in psychiatry, neurology, surgery, or pediatrics other than the choice of 4th year medical school electives." (See paragraph nine)

That doesn't tell me that he is a neurologist, though.

2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

So based on a popular magazine blog you are going to contend that you can call a psychiatrist a neurologist, you cannot possibly be serious. So a psychiatrist should be called a surgeon? This strains credulity and makes AGF increasingly difficult. See American Academy of Neurology: Working with your doctor "What is a Neurologist? A neurologist is a medical doctor with specialized training in diagnosing, treating, and managing disorders of the brain and nervous system. Neurologists do not perform surgery. A neurologist's training includes an undergraduate degree, four years of medical school, a one-year internship, and at least three years of specialized training." Or American Psychiatric Association: What is a psychiatrist " After graduation, doctors spend the first year of residency training in a hospital taking care of patients with a wide range of medical illnesses. The psychiatrist-in-training then spends at least three additional years in psychiatry residency learning the diagnosis and treatment of mental health, gaining valuable skills in various forms of psychotherapy, and in the use of psychiatric medications and other treatments. The education and training requirements for psychiatry are set by the ACGME and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Physicians who pass the examination are granted board certification, a pre-requisite to subspecialty certification." WP does not bestow credentials (nor do most states in the US allow the use of these titles) based on blog post on a popular magazine website. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have much time right now, but I was saying that there was not enough evidence for him to be a neurologist in the article. The two fields are very closely overlapped, though, which may have caused the confusion. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to log in just now, the IP above^^ is me.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

Doctor Finder

Is Doctor Finder RS? It seems the content is from and maintained by doximity.com where the content can be edited by users. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

WebMD Biography

Are the biographies published on WebMD self written and submitted? are they subjected to fact checking? - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

i have found plenty that are outdated.. I don't trust them. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"Amen's clinics sell medical services"

I think this sentence is a bit clunky and pov. Don't the vast majority of clinics charge for their services? Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This could be more prominent in the article and then summarized in the lede: the clinics have been criticized for mixing commercial motives with questionable science - "the misuse of neuroscience in marketing technology" as mentioned in this source. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it helps provide an important distinction. The vast majority of clinics provide services that are reimbursable by insurance. Amen's clinics sell services that must be paid for out of pocket, this has been an issue raised by many of the sources cited. If you have a suggestion that would be helpful. Or it can certainly be changed once the issue of large out of pocket expenses for patients receiving treatments that are not accepted by the field or insurance companies has been included. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be reworded then, as I didn't get those ideas from the lead. We seem to be avoiding actually being NPOV here. As one of the main complaints is that Amen seems to wildly successful. That seems to be missing from the lead. Like how many books has he written, how many has he sold? Doesn't he also published articles in his field? Is he as discredited as Wikipedia seems to imply?

The source Alexbrn links even states "Despite these critiques, Dr. Amen adds to his public credibility by appearing on more than a thousand “blockbuster fundraising shows” for public television." The PBS section goes to task to discredit the shows, but fails to mention that they seem to be immensely popular, introduce thousands to core ideas of brain health, and have raised lots of donations for PBS.

The zeal to discredit much, or most, of his work, would seem to fly in the face of his ongoing success. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW your observation is echoed by Tucker (2012), "Meanwhile, the disconnect between Amen’s public image and professional reputation among the elite in the field has come to defy logic." - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Public credibility and profitability don't add up to sound medicine (homeopathy makes lots of money). I suggest a good reading of the sources and this talk page. As above if material about non reimbursement, the unethical practice of charging large sums for treatments with real risk and no proven benefits as indicated by ample sources of high quality is reflected later in the article it can be summarized in the lead. Suggestions? The article can be edited to reflect his marketing success as due. Check his publications, not exactly substantial, many in fringe journals, read the critiques by noted experts. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think a section on ethics would be a good addition. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It's an unusual thing to read in a medical article, but it's a significant point. The WebMD source attached to the sentence doesn't clearly explain the out-of-pocket issues, and I haven't found any other sources here that explicitly make that point. Looking through the sources, I wouldn't doubt that point is directly made somewhere, though. Amen Clinic uses PMC3751061 to support the lack of insurance coverage, but again, it sort of dances around the issue. Grayfell (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

As I posted above. Farah in a 2009 editorial in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21133) says, "Another profitable but unproven application of brain imaging is an an aid to diagnosis for psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism. Definitive diagnoses are not always possible in in psychiatry, especially pediatric psychiatry, and companies such as the Amen Clinics and Brain Matters are profiting by suggesting they have a more scientific basis for diagnosis than conventional psychiatry. Tens of thousands of individuals, many of them children, have been exposed to the radiation of SPECT scans and paid thousands of dollars out of pocket (because insurers will not pay) against the advice of many experts including the American Psychiatric Association's Council on Children Adolescents and their families." There are more I am sure just haven't gone through the sources again yet. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Amen's claims

Any claims made by the subject that are included in the article must be balanced per WP:DUE with the mainstream scientific consensus as represented by reliable sources. For some of his claims that would require the article discuss the state of neuroimaging in psychiatry, that is outside the scope of this article and belongs in neuroimaging. Take note of WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. I encourage balance and Amen can be used for his ideas but for meeting policies and guidelines some careful editing will be required. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This sentence, "A 2013 interview with the Telegraph, noted that "the heart of the controversy – and Amen’s success," was the use of SPECT scans." is from a source that only has the quality to support the discussion of Amen's ideas as WP:FRINGE. It also cannot be used because it discusses "Amen's success" in an unclear manner. It is in the section on SPECT scanning, if we discuss Amen's success in SPECT scanning it implies that SPECT scanning as used by Amen is successful. This is not the case. The highest quality MEDRS we have says that neuroimaging studies "have yet to impact significantly the diagnosis or treatment of individual patients." (First et al. 2012) This is clearly not success in the application of SPECT for diagnosis and treatment. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

First off, this would be the Telegraph's claim, right(?), and I don't necessarily agree we're implying that he had success with SPECT scanning, although he does seem to be quite the world leader in the field. But I can see how someone could reach to infer that we are claiming his scans are medically successful, I guess.

But to move things along would a basic tweak such as,

A 2013 interview with the Telegraph, noted that "the heart of the controversy," and Amen’s business success, was the use of SPECT scans.

Do the trick? Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"the heart of the controversy" is redundant to the discussion of SPECT and in discussing Amen's use of SPECT it is not merely controversial it is unsupported medical practice. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This edit by Sportfan5000 ("we should look for ways the accused can speak for himself") is problematic: a classic example of the WP:GEVAL fallacy in action. It's particularly bad that we're giving space to Amen's advocacy of his notions as advancing "scientific rigor", followed by "Neuroimaging is a relatively new discipline within medicine and neuroscience/psychology" rather than the RS view (that he is doing nothing of the kind). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence, "Amen states he feels the use is a "step towards scientific rigor," specifically in psychiatry." needs to be balanced by discussion of Amen as qualified to comment on scientific rigor in psychiatry. He has declined to participate in a blinded study proposed by a reputable journal. He has not published extensively and much of his publication is in fringe journals. He has been clearly critiqued by Leuchtner (2009) "However, the reader who has any degree of familiarity with mental illness and brain science is left unconvinced that his [Amen's] highly commercialized use of scanning is justified" ...Amen, "...has not subjected his treatment approaches to the level of systematic scientific scrutiny expected for scientifically based medical practice." and others. His comment does not belong in the article based on WP:DUE. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence, "Neuroimaging is a relatively new discipline within medicine and neuroscience/psychology." is sourced to a prepublication paper and is not placed in proper context. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

BLPN posting

- posted there without notice here, by User:Sportfan5000 in this dif.  blech Jytdog (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I was following up from a posting at ANI, and noted there that I had posted at BLPN. Shall I infer that your "blech" is a traditional expression of disapproval? Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The instructions at BLPN are clear, and for good reason, that you are supposed to post a notice to the relevant Talk page if you open a thread at BLPN. Jytdog (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The instructions are not that clear, even getting through several walls of them, and I'm still bristling at the insinuation I have done something wrong, deserving of contempt. Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Sportfan5000 also opened a discussion on this at Project Medicine, here where happily, Doc James is giving the editor good advice.Jytdog (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I must be missing the good advice part because it doesn't seem to be there. But I will note what seems to be a condescending tone for what has been an effort to have more eyes on this article. Seems like posting at BLPN, and Medicine Wikiproject, for help, on a BLP article of a medical professional is the way to go. Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think its there. As mentioned the instructions at BLPN are clear. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Doc James is really one of the best health-related contributors on Wikipedia. He makes it crystal clear that based on what you presented, it appears to him that there are significant problems with Amen's work. Jytdog (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Sportfan5000, I do want to say that your posting on Project Medicine was appropriate and appropriately tentative. It would have been better to post notice of that here as well, but that is just being collegial; it is not required there as it is for BLPN. Jytdog (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

Some issues with the article as it stands, e.g.:

• A standalone "Criticism" section
• A "Reception" section with just a lengthy positive quote from a minor review
• Many references to Amen's methods as though they work in WP's voice, when according to the sources this is debatable.

I have tagged the article accordingly. Thoughts? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, please start by listing the specific points where the article says that his diagnosis method and therapies work. Or tag them.  :2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3 has already attended to most of these, but to take one remaining example from the lede: "He has used single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) as a diagnostic tool to identify different types of ADD and ADHD" (states Wikipedia, as a fact). We go on to say he's devised the "types" himself but this could do with more qualification - when no RS supports such claims, they really need to be qualified. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I notice the criticism in the lede has been watered down again. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there is some EW going on so, I suggest a paraphrase of "The lack of empirical validation has led to widespread condemnation of diagnostic SPECT as premature and unproven" Is there a source of comparable quality that says otherwise? If not this is the properly sourced statement that should be paraphrased in the lead. I strongly suggest policy based, sourced discussion instead of EW, we are getting pretty close to 3RR (if not already there.)

ref

- - MrBill3 (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I have made the edit. I also agree that criticism should not be in a separate section but addressing the subject in the body of the article as per MOS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, using the good sources you mention on this Talk page, I think the article could be revamped considerably, drawing on them to give a more neutral & fuller picture of the topic. I also think it might be worth re-visiting the question of whether the content here and at Amen Clinic can be usefully merged. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the article has come a long way and is now pretty neutral. Current information about the validated uses of SPECT (with differentiation of Amen's uses) needs to be included. I added a ref to the further reading section that should assist (it's 38p of fairly sophisticated material an editor with experience or expertise in the field would be most helpful). Also that critics have stated SPECT holds promise and should be studied further should be added (Adinoff & Devous 2010, Insel 2010). I think the tags may be removed if some of this is added. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it's looking a lot better. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I was tied up with personal commitments for the last two days but just wanted to say that I agree that the article is becoming more neutral as well. I think the word "criticized" is a better description in the opening as he certainly is being criticized a lot in his field.

I think it is fair to include professionally sourced counter-arguments to his theories (point by point) in the body of the article as well. That's accurate and that would be within the scope of neutrality.

I think it's also good that something be included in the article sourcing that there are professionals in the field who see potential for SPECT, although that is not claiming that it's proven in those areas yet.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have a criticism of Wikipedia policy regarding the field of "psychology": It tends to treat psychology articles like they are about "pure science", when psychology, in reality, is much more what is called a "soft science". That is, science can help in this area, and should be used as much as possible, but there is something about psychology that is more elusive and much more difficult to pin down.

In a nutshell, psychology is inherently subjective, when science is a practice in objectivity. (Psychology being a part of what psychiatry is, in addition to the neurological and pharmaceutical aspects). All of this makes it much harder to "scientifically evaluate" things that involve psychological states of mind.

So people in these fields are all less scientific than they appear to be (including Dr. Amen's critics).

Psychiatry is far from being a "cut and dried" field, and that applies as much to Dr. Amen's critics as it does to Dr. Amen.

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have a criticism of a WP policy, air it on the Talk page for that policy. We don't discuss debate here, we just follow it! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added some content about Amen's popularity and success. I don't think that the potential of SPECT belongs in this article as none of the sources mention Amen's use or study of SPECT. His scientific/scholarly contributions are limited and some of his publications have received poor reviews. There is a link for SPECT. I am removing the NPOV and BALANCE tags. Discussion and improvement can of course continue but I don't think the tags need to remain. Per policy if an editor feels differently and chooses to replace the tag(s) a new section with policy based discussion and sources should be added on this page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I used "immensely popular". I think that is accurate per sources. Is it encylopedic? - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not if it's accurate. Wikipedia can afford a little bit of colour in its language sometimes! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Unproven

I'm not sure if unproven is the right word. Since the psychological aspect of this is very hard to prove or disprove. Most psychology is actually "unproven", due to problems with applying scientific method to psychology.

Is it fair to call his theories unproven unless you are also going to put "unproven" in the opening of most Wikipedia psychology articles?

I think there is a lot of professional criticism of his ideas. But a lot of psychological theories and therapies get criticized (professionally).

I think there is probably a way, I'm not saying that it can't be done, but I'm not sure if the article is there yet.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Unproven is what the sources say. Amen is specifically discussed in the sources so it is the sources not WP that have "singled out" Amen. The criticism of other theories and therapies is irrelevant here, it belongs on the pages of those theories and therapies. An editors opinion of the difficulties in applying the scientific method to psychology is irrelevant, what WP goes by is the mainstream scientific consensus. Take a look at the articles on psychology " an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors." Importantly also note that Amen is not a psychologist but a psychiatrist. Psychiatry is the medical specialty devoted to the study, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental disorders. One can note that the mainstream definition of one specifies it is the scientific study and the later is a medical specialty. This talk page is not the place for this discussion it belongs on the talk page of the article psychology (I would suggest providing some sources rather than just an editors opinion). As a forumly follow up there are "proven" diagnostic and therapeutic techniques in psychiatry. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cliffswallow-vaulting OK, I don't know if you have read WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS (especially the somewhat inaptly named section on FRINGE in health-related articles which is here here, but one of the key types of FRINGE claims we deal with in health-related Wikipedia articles, is when people claim that X is effective for treating/diagnosing Y, when there is insufficient evidence to make that definitive claim. You need solid evidence (and consensus behind it) to say and act as though X is effective for Y - there is a burden of proof on the one who makes that positive, definitive claim. Do you get that? I mean there are people who sell (and far too many people who buy) magnetic bracelets that they market as being effective for everything from preventing cancer to treating depression. And it is a fact that Amen uses and discusses SPECT scanning in ways that go way beyond what the evidence supports. In Wikipedia, he is unambiguously FRINGE on that - way outside the mainstream. Outside of Wikipedia, you can talk about him in any number of ways - cutting edge hero or irresponsible quack - but here, we make it unambiguously clear that what he does and advocates is not grounded in Evidence-based medicine, which is the standard we follow. As we discussed on your Talk page, please become familiar with the policies and guidelines that govern how Wikipedia handles health-related content, and when you advocate for changes to content, please ground your actual arguments in policies and guidelines, not in hand-wavy stuff as you do above (as an aside, it is pretty insulting to the fields of psychology and psychiatry to say they do not aim for EBM - see here and here and here and here). Alternatively, please feel free to ask (and really ask) about the policy or guideline that makes some given piece of content OK. Finally, if you want to work on changing how Wikipedia handles this sort of thing, the way to do that is to advocate for the changes you want on the relevant policy/guideline Talk pages (which will also require you to become very familiar with that policy/guideline and how it is commonly deployed. Jytdog (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

WL within quote standard of care and addition of many WL's

I have wl'd standard of care within a quote. I feel the term is used as described in the article linked to and that it is an important term that a link to the definition should be made. I think this is a valid exception to general policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I have also added numerous wl's. If an editor finds any of them inappropriate or a case of overlink, feel free to edit (comments appreciated). - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Amen criticism of over-medication

Cliffswallow-vaulting, you had added some commentary here and then deleted it, that the article should include Amen's criticism about over-medication in the field of psychiatry. Can you please provide some sources that describe his criticisms so we can see if they are acceptable and can discuss what kind of content they can support? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I chose to withdraw it because I was concerned that it would be misunderstood. Thanks.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If his stance is notable it warrants inclusion. Please provide available sources so this can be discussed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look for sources mentioning Amen and 'over-medication' but can't find anything at all. SmartSE (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Here, on his website: http://www.amenclinics.com/dr-amen/blog/2013/08/the-french-secret-to-healing-adhd-without-medication/ He talks about over use of medication for childhood ADD in U.S. as compared to France.

On his website (see above)^^ he also talks about (I don't know his sources) how the French holistic approach to treating childhood ADD is effective and allows less use of medication (not zero, but less). By the way, on his infomercials he talks a lot about the over-medication of children and adults (returns to the subject many times in his infomercial). His infomercials run a lot with certain local PBS stations, not the national PBS, but certain local PBS outlets.2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

First, log in. Second we need RS discussing it to make it notable, anything out there? If he goes into as much as described someone has probably commented on it. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! :-) I'll look for some more sources. Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's another one. It's possibly limited too (I'm not sure). It's a news website (CSNBC) but it's basically just posting a press release from the Amen clinic. However it makes a very strong statement about over-prescription of medications. Here, http://www.cnbc.com/id/100612061 Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate sentence in article lead

The sentence reads as follows, "Amen is perhaps the most controversial psychiatrist in the U.S. but could also be the most commercially prosperous."[6]

This is using one reporters phrasing as a fact, it also violates WP:LEAD. Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No matching quote in article, there is also no such line in the article that matches this quote-- at all.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The content is supported by the two sources The Washington Post Magazine article and the Daily Telegraph article. It is not a quote but an appropriate summary of the content in the reception section and thus is completely compliant with WP:LEAD. The content it summarizes includes a quote in the Reception section "the most controversial psychiatrist in America [who] may also be the most commercially successful". The sentence is clearly a very close paraphrase of a direct quote. It is also qualified in the lead with perhaps. I am reverting this and several other edits with explanation below for the others. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It is in quotes, though (" ") in English writing, these are only for direct quotes, and do not mean a paraphrase. These are for paraphrases (' '), or you can just leave them out, if you have a footnote. That is standard academic writing practice.

Also the revert has put his place of birth and education back into the opening. They are already in the "Early Life/Education" section. Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead is not in quotes. The reception section contains,

Amen was characterized in a 2013 Daily Telegraph interview as, "the most controversial psychiatrist in America [who] may also be the most commercially successful," as well as the "most popular."

The content in quotations is a direct quote of the articles cited and footnoted, its part of the first sentence of the article, read the source. The second quote is from The Washington Post Magazine article. I the change to "characterized in a 2013 Daily Telegraph article" may have been incorrect for the entire sentence in the Reception section. The second quote should be attributed to The Washington Post article. On WP these (' ') are generally used for quotes within quotes, paraphrasing is simply cited, single brackets ([ ]) are used to indicate material inserted by an editor for clarification. His place of birth and education belong in the lead also, read WP:LEAD.

Assertions such as, "No matching quote in article, there is also no such line in the article that matches this quote-- at all." which are false constitute disruptive editing.

ref

- - MrBill3 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm really sorry, I must have confused it with something else, I was jumping back and forth at that point. Next time I'll do one thing at a time. (re quotes). Thanks!Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. I have clarified the attribution of the quotes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ethics section edits reverted

The content added,

However, Colorado based Psychiatrist, Ted henderson has said that he "finds it a useful tool in diagnosing treatment-resistant depression." He has also said that he sees the controversy over SPECT as a symptom of American arrogance. He said that SPECT "is used in several countries like the Netherlands and France. But American institutions don’t pay attention to what’s being done abroad”

Is a clear example of WP:UNDUE. Ted henderson is a "Colorado based Psychiatrist" this does not give his comments WP:WEIGHT. In particular the weight his comments are due is relative to how they reflect the mainstream scientific consensus and the quality of the source. There are geologists who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old the fact they are in the field of geology does not mean that their comments belong in an encyclopedia. Likewise a psychiatrist whose views are WP:FRINGE do not have sufficient weight for inclusion. If there are quality sources that back up the use of SPECT in particular for diagnosis and treatment of the mental disorders Amen uses it for they might lend some weight to Henderson's comments but comments that reflect the mainstream scientific consensus bear substantially more weight. The source is a Daily Telegraph article appropriate for discussion of Amen's reception and discussion in the media but not a valid source for discussing medical ethics.

The same applies for the content,

He has also said that he sees the controversy over SPECT as a symptom of American arrogance.

See WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE in addition to WP:MEDRS. This has been covered in prior discussions on this talk page already. The mainstream scientific consensus is clear from the highest quality source we have the 2012 APA Official Action "Consensus Report of the APA Work Group on Neuroimaging Markers of Psychiatric Disorders." It is also clear in the other MEDRS level recent sources. This position is what must be clearly expressed. Statements that represent FRINGE opinions must be clearly identified as such and not given UNDUE weight.

Per WP:PROFRINGE "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable."

That Amen's use of SPECT for diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders is fringe has been clearly established both in the Fringe section above and in the 2012 APA paper. Thus proponents of this fringe practice need their statements identified as fringe and are not to be given undue weight.

Edits reverted.

Attribution of phrenology comparison is also incorrect read the source and the reference in the source. It does not come from Hall exclusively she has borrowed it from Utal thus it is a comparison made by two reliable sources.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The sources currently in the Ethics section are Martha Farah a leading neuroscience researcher in a highly reputable journal. Irving Kirsch who is associate director of a program to study placebo effects at Harvard directly quoted in a newspaper article commenting specifically on Amen's practices. Anjan Chatterjee (neuroscientist) a professor of neurology who writes on the ethical use of neuroscience findings in society in an article in a reputable journal. And Farah and Gillihan in the book Neuroethics in Practice published by a highly reputed major academic press (Oxford). Ted Henderson's weight in comparison is none. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain that! :-) I read it carefully and I see what you mean. I understand the revert and I agree.

However I also added a (textual) reference (in a separate edit) to the American Psychiatric Association president-elect, added to his quotation criticizing Dr. Amen, and the revert took that out. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the feedback, I very much do! I learned from it as well.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your graciousness. It is all to rare on WP Talk pages. I believe that the comparison to phrenology has also been made by Hall and Utal (she cites him in her article). The Hall article is specifically titled "SPECT Scans at the Amen Clinic – A New Phrenology?" so to say "have been compared" and give the two citations (one of which refers to a third source, I haven't had time to research yet) is probably appropriate. That said a clear attribution of such a comparison to an expert in the field is weighty. I think if we attribute it to Lieberman we need to add "and others" which is every so slightly less concise. As you say you have learned some more, (believe me its never over, we are all learning PAG interpretation) what do you think? Is the attribution to Lieberman weighty enough to warrant inclusion given the added text and addition of "and others"?

Pointing out mistakes made by reverts like the loss of a intervening edit is important. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome! Thank you as well for your graciousness! :-) Yes Wikipedia can be like that, but I notice that there are people who are trying to make it better. I see your point about Lieberman, it's not critical to me. I do think that Amen has a lot of critics, so if it is included I think that "and others" is no problem either. But I'm just as fine with leaving it as is. No problem with the edit, it's easy to do.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 06:41, 20 March 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.[1] He received his undergraduate degree from Southern California College in 1978 and his doctorate from Oral Roberts University School of Medicine in 1982.[6][7]." 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)

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/wiki/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/wiki/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 Wikipedia editor? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia's policies & guidelines. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 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" (Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 (Wikipedia: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)

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)

Taken to Edit warring NB. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 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.[9][19]": 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 ^{talk|contribs|COI} 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,"[9] 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."[19]' 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 Wikipedia articles must not contain WP:original research:

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] 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 ^{talk|contribs|COI} 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 ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The quote from the Washington Post below and the two APA papers provide more than adequate support for widely criticized and demonstrate clearly a lack of validity for diagnosis or guiding treatment. The APA papers explicitly state that. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "do not provide sufficient specificity and sensitivity to accurately classify individual cases with respect to the presence of a psychiatric illness." "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..." - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Lieberman [APA president] and many of his peers say there’s simply no proof that the blood-flow activity SPECT tracks can be useful for anything beyond identifying basic medical conditions." - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"there is presently no evidence to support neuroimaging techniques to aid, substantiate, or otherwise illuminate the diagnosis or treatment of psychiatric disorders." Adinoff and Devous 2010 doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.10050671r, - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

DUE weight

Per WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS the views of "Officials at major psychiatric and neuroscience associations and research centers", "the nation’s most prestigious medical organizations in the field" and "major research institution(s)" carry the greatest due weight. This is explicitly clear in both the core policy and the widely supported guideline.

Thus the content,

"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..."

Not only must be included but must receive the highest level of prominence and be reflected predominantly.

Is there any policy based contention with quality sources that support reflecting anything else as the mainstream academic consensus on the use of SPECT for psychiatric diagnosis and treatment and the current medical knowledge thereof?

This must be the predominant representation in the article. If an editor can propose paraphrasing that adequately and accurately reflects this please do so. Unless a valid argument for not presenting this information prominently is put forth I will replace the above content and continue to edit the article so it reflects significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see a proposed paraphrasing, as I prefer and policy supports limited quoting. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

new article on Amen

See here: https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2014/07/psych-central-posts-on-amen-clinics-neglect-one-thing-evidence/ Don't know if you all will find it reliable or not. It is a blog from MIT's Knight Science Journal Program, specifically from their blog on science journalism called KSJ Tracker, the importance of which is described (by them) here. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

In spite of the distinguished nature of the contributors, I don't see how we can use that as a source....BUT (!) it does mention some RS which could be used. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know Knight Science Journalism Fellowships seems like a pretty reputable program at a very reputable institution. The question would be what is the level of editorial control exercised? The program is described as journalism. Is the KSJ Tracker a source with appropriate oversight? At any rate, this article, in The New York Times Magazine "The therapeutic mind scam" is clearly RS and has,

"Scientists are in near-universal agreement that that day has not yet come.", "And it's impossible to know how many of Amen's patients have been helped, because he hasn't published studies that would enable others to evaluate the effectiveness of his treatments." and "Sam Goldstein, a neuropsychologist at the University of Utah who has known Amen for a decade, is skeptical of Amen's apparent ability to diagnose almost any psychiatric illness. 'If you have an ailment, he can find it,' Goldstein says. 'That's one aspect of pseudoscience -- it claims to do everything.' Stephen Hinshaw adds that Amen is exploiting families who are desperate for help. 'Making claims before the evidence is out there does families a lot of harm,' he says."

It seems almost all reliable sources cite virtual total lack of acceptance in the scientific community and a lack of scientific evaluation while many add mentions of pseudoscience and exploitation of desperate patients and families. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

In this case it is important to note that the author (Paul Raeburn) is a distinguished science writer. That means that even if the publisher isn't 100% solid (which I'm not entirely sure of) we can consider the article to be reliable along the lines of WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Note that he was the author of the NYT article linked above, and so has clearly been following Amen's work for the last 10 years. I see no reason why we can't use it as a source. SmartSE (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You make a good point. This might well be an exception to the general rule, so we could still use it. Go for it and let's see what happens! -- Brangifer (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

(1)WP:NPOV § WP:ASSERT - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)