User:BeenAroundAWhile/AmenMediationRequest

Daniel Amen

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Alexbrn (talk · contribs)
3. MrBill3 (talk · contribs)
4. ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs)
5. Jytdog (talk · contribs)
6. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Daniel Amen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Daniel Amen#MOS:LEAD Requires neutrality in the opening
• Talk:Daniel Amen#Use of the word "condemned" in the article lead is inappropriate

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

Problem A) (in short) Use of the word "condemned" keeps being put in the article lead, related to the article subjects medical theory (he is a board certified psychiatrist and neurologist) in the article lead is inappropriate. It is also editorializing in the lead of an article about a living person.

Problem B) (in short) large chunks of opening text, all fully supported by factual citations, are being continually reverted in a 24 hour cycle from the article lead. No citation mentioning a non-negative fact can survive more than 24 hours on this site in the lead. Facts, such as that the article subject is a neurologist, or that he works for the American National Football League (NOTE: This citation, although it is mostly about an All-Star-Hockey player evaluated by Dr. Amen, also mentions that Dr. Amen works for the National Football league as a post-concussion specialist) are frequently removed out of hand, in spite of legitimate citations and footnotes. The fact that he is a neurologist, or that he works in this capacity for the National Football League (NOTE: This citation, although it is mostly about an All-Star-Hockey player evaluated by Dr. Amen, also mentions that Dr. Amen works for the National Football league as a post-concussion specialist) should not be repeatedly stripped from the article.

Problem A) (Fuller detail of problem-- summarized succinctly, but with all of the key points).

Use of the word "condemned" related to the article subjects medical theory (he is a board certified psychiatrist and neurologist) in the article lead is inappropriate. It is also editorializing in the lead of an article about a living person.

And--

So is the statement that his diagnostic theory has not been accepted by the psychiatric or medical community (the editor claiming this is not properly sourcing such a claim).

1) This is an abuse of MOS:LEAD.

MOS:LEAD Requires neutrality in the opening

MOS:LEAD says "no contentious language in the opening". The word "condemned" is very contentious. It is also clearly being used by the editors to condemn the article subject (both the person and his theories).

Saying that his therapy "is condemned" is also an interpretation of what others have said. No one else, not one professional in the field, has been quoted using the word "condemned".

Also as per WP:MEDRS, a determination of a WP:FRINGE theory must not be drawn from newspapers (instead medical publications would have to report the theory as effectively "Fringe").

MOS:LEAD says the following-- "Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view".

MOS:LEAD also says Science that is being questioned, is not considered to be the same as a fringe theory (paraphrase from WP:FRINGE).

From WP:FRINGE--

Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.

Dr. Amen, the proponent of this theory and the subject of this article, has the following credentials:

1) He is a board certified psychiatrist.

2) He is a board certified neurologist.

He is a graduate of the following schools:

Amen received his undergraduate degree from Southern California College in 1978 and his doctorate from Oral Roberts University School of Medicine in 1982. Amen did his general psychiatric training at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., and his child and adolescent psychiatry training at Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu.

He also works for the NFL (the National Football League (NOTE: This citation, although it is mostly about an All-Star-Hockey player evaluated by Dr. Amen, also mentions that Dr. Amen works for the National Football league as a post-concussion specialist) as a neurologist(a Doctor) (NOTE: This citation, although it is mostly about an All-Star-Hockey player evaluated by Dr. Amen, also mentions that Dr. Amen works for the National Football league as a post-concussion specialist) (See article).

Therefore, as per WP:FRINGE, his diagnostic approach and therapy should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.

Lastly, Dr. Amen has 22 (twenty-two) published peer-reviewed articles, listed on PUBMED, an authoritative source, here is PUBMEDs listing of his articles: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%28Daniel%20Amen[Author]%29&cmd=DetailsSearch

Independent research (not done by Dr. Amen):

Here is list of independent studies on attempts to scientifically correlate Dr. Amens theory and diagnosis method (using SPECT imaging to correlate brain scan patterns to ADD or ADHD. Although not conclusive, they do rise to the level of the following, found in WP:FRINGEas a reason not to treat the article as a fringe topic, again-- should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists

None of this proves that Dr. Amen is right, and his theories have certainly been criticized by number of his colleagues (not unusual at all in medicine and science) but altogether, none of this proves that Dr. Amen's theory meets the standards of WP:FRINGEeither. At worst it is "Questionable science" (as defined by WP:FRINGE, and at best it is a new idea meeting the same flurry of doubt that most new ideas get in science and medicine.

In any case, the article does not warrant WP:FRINGE labeling or editorial treatment, and so words like "condemned" and "controversy" are not appropriate for the lead. It would be appropriate however to say something like, "a number of scientists in his field have criticized his theory" or, "the veracity of his theory is still under debate in the scientific community".

Problem B) (added detail and link to contrib and evidence of violent imagery by alleged offender)I was able to find the specific contrib of one of the people doing these wholesale removals of cited text, with links to the relevant contribs.

ArtifexMayhem (most recent removal of citations and text about article subject being a neurologist, operating a clinics that treat ADD and ADHD and being employed by the National Football League. (NOTE: This citation, although it is mostly about an All-Star-Hockey player evaluated by Dr. Amen, also mentions that Dr. Amen works for the National Football league as a post-concussion specialist)

See this contrib " 20:43, 11 March 2014 (diff

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• @Cliffswallow-vaulting: Could you clarify your interest in this dispute since you have no edits at either the article or the article talk page? (For example, if you are an editor who has been previously editing under an IP address and who has now created an account, and no longer intends to edit under the IP address, would you please so note, above?) — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC) (Mediation Committee member) Never mind, just saw the talk page, duh. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Reject. Insufficient participants for mediation to proceed. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I was the "plaintiff" and I'd like to add that we resolved our differences sufficiently to let the mediation time out. So they really didn't ignore it. Thanks! 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I forgot to log in! This (above)^^ is me.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)