Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Daniel Amen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 9 December 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
I've reverted a series of edits which made some substantial chanegs to the article. In particular, the changes to the lead completely changed the tone, and made it no longer summarise the rest of the article. Given the history of this article, it is very hard to believe this is not yet another attempt to whitewash. SmartSE ( talk) 09:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Amen, but it is from a peer reviewed journal, which is treated differently. See Policy under WP:PRIMARY (Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.) It has been scrutinized and accepted by other scientists/doctors prior to publication. If you want to know how Amen practices medicine, he tells you in the source, which is completely acceptable in this case. This change was to clarify how Amen uses SPECT, which is currently unclear in the stub. This isn't a self-published or promoted primary source. This does not violate wikipedia rules. Again, this is from a peer-reviewed journal. Regarding b) attribution is implied when the sentence starts with "Amen advocates for..." and the reference notes the author and the quote; however, a simple edit could have fixed that, without assuming bad faith. I know what I am doing when I reference Amen's papers. It is not puffery or promotion.
Regarding the use of SPECT, please note the paper by Zheng at al, where in the introduction the authors state "Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) with 99mTc-ethyl cysteine dimer (99mTc-ECD) has been widely used to evaluate many types of cerebrovascular diseases and brain disorders by measuring regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF). Moreover, longitudinal 99mTc-ECD SPECT brain imaging can be adopted to monitor the changes of rCBF to support the treatment plan."Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page). This is also free. These are all peer-reviewed papers from scientists and doctors in the field in journals specific for psychiatry. Feel free to use these to change Amen's lede if you don't want to use his own (peer-reviewed) papers. However, if you choose to leave the lede the same, it is no longer NPOV. Please note, I tried to put the above references into this answer but apparently I don't know how to do it. Here are the links to the papers: (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5307251/) (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3733258/) (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4253641/)·
Blacklist21 (
talk) 18:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
as i'm an amateur scientist and layman, after seeing the Ted talk on YouTube and then looking at this article, my initial thoughts are (and these can be directions for improving the article)
Not making an appointment for a SPECT scan yet! Thanks Thinkadoodle ( talk) 11:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
His books and quackery are peddled uncritically in Central European countries.
This article helped me arrive at a quick conclusion what to do with these.
Let us protect it against astroturfing etc. Zezen ( talk) 10:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
This has been going on here for years now. Selected studies are used to claim "Scientific consensus" when there is none. One can make the argument that Amens SPECT studies are not fully accepted. One can not make the argument that there is large-scale (majority) scientific consensus that they are wrong.
Opinion (the jury) is "out", not "against".
That means-- Most scientists/Doctors don't know if Amen is right-- but most have not said that he is wrong either. The leade (lede in British Engish) of the article is consistently used to totally discredit Amen without any comprehensive scientific basis. Four (small) scientific studies do not equate to "scientific consensus" that Amen is wrong. Yet these four inadequate studies are put prominently in the lead to discredit Amen before any reader, the very moment they start reading the article.
The article is written like a hit piece. It doesn't cover the issue from NPOV, it targets the subject.
Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 08:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Daniel Amen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 9 December 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
I've reverted a series of edits which made some substantial chanegs to the article. In particular, the changes to the lead completely changed the tone, and made it no longer summarise the rest of the article. Given the history of this article, it is very hard to believe this is not yet another attempt to whitewash. SmartSE ( talk) 09:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Amen, but it is from a peer reviewed journal, which is treated differently. See Policy under WP:PRIMARY (Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.) It has been scrutinized and accepted by other scientists/doctors prior to publication. If you want to know how Amen practices medicine, he tells you in the source, which is completely acceptable in this case. This change was to clarify how Amen uses SPECT, which is currently unclear in the stub. This isn't a self-published or promoted primary source. This does not violate wikipedia rules. Again, this is from a peer-reviewed journal. Regarding b) attribution is implied when the sentence starts with "Amen advocates for..." and the reference notes the author and the quote; however, a simple edit could have fixed that, without assuming bad faith. I know what I am doing when I reference Amen's papers. It is not puffery or promotion.
Regarding the use of SPECT, please note the paper by Zheng at al, where in the introduction the authors state "Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) with 99mTc-ethyl cysteine dimer (99mTc-ECD) has been widely used to evaluate many types of cerebrovascular diseases and brain disorders by measuring regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF). Moreover, longitudinal 99mTc-ECD SPECT brain imaging can be adopted to monitor the changes of rCBF to support the treatment plan."Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page). This is also free. These are all peer-reviewed papers from scientists and doctors in the field in journals specific for psychiatry. Feel free to use these to change Amen's lede if you don't want to use his own (peer-reviewed) papers. However, if you choose to leave the lede the same, it is no longer NPOV. Please note, I tried to put the above references into this answer but apparently I don't know how to do it. Here are the links to the papers: (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5307251/) (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3733258/) (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4253641/)·
Blacklist21 (
talk) 18:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
as i'm an amateur scientist and layman, after seeing the Ted talk on YouTube and then looking at this article, my initial thoughts are (and these can be directions for improving the article)
Not making an appointment for a SPECT scan yet! Thanks Thinkadoodle ( talk) 11:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
His books and quackery are peddled uncritically in Central European countries.
This article helped me arrive at a quick conclusion what to do with these.
Let us protect it against astroturfing etc. Zezen ( talk) 10:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
This has been going on here for years now. Selected studies are used to claim "Scientific consensus" when there is none. One can make the argument that Amens SPECT studies are not fully accepted. One can not make the argument that there is large-scale (majority) scientific consensus that they are wrong.
Opinion (the jury) is "out", not "against".
That means-- Most scientists/Doctors don't know if Amen is right-- but most have not said that he is wrong either. The leade (lede in British Engish) of the article is consistently used to totally discredit Amen without any comprehensive scientific basis. Four (small) scientific studies do not equate to "scientific consensus" that Amen is wrong. Yet these four inadequate studies are put prominently in the lead to discredit Amen before any reader, the very moment they start reading the article.
The article is written like a hit piece. It doesn't cover the issue from NPOV, it targets the subject.
Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 08:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)