Talk:Dianazene

Dr. David S. Touretzky as a reliable source

That seems obvious. He is a scientist, he as made appearance in the media as expert on the topic in the media. This certainly fulfill "authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand [...] the author of a source may be reliable outside her/his primary field if s/he has become recognized as having expertise in that secondary area of study". Wikipediatrix, your views that he is on an "extreme anti-Scn campaign" is your WP:OR. The materials linked to happens to be very well sourced. Raymond Hill 15:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh really. Let's look at his page then. It's here. The Scientology bit is clearly just a hobby for him, coming as it does well below all his actual areas of expertise, and someone who says "Sure, Scientology is a rich and vengeful religious cult based on a bizarre form of psychotherapy and a belief in reincarnated space aliens. But that doesn't mean we can't have fun with them" doesn't sound anything remotely like a serious expert to me. That he makes hyperbolic statements like "The biggest fraud known to man" also pretty much disqualifies as someone to take seriously. This is simply one guy's personal home page where he rants about what's on his mind about Scientology, no better than a blog, and it does NOT even begin to qualify as a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines no matter how much you want it to because you like the things he says. There's nothing stopping you from citing the Picture Book as the source, but no, you're insistent on instead citing this guy's homepage that cites the book, apparently just so you can get his POV in here. wikipediatrix 15:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

So the position where he listed Scientology on his home page is your rationale to judge the quality of his work on Scientology? Your views on Dr. Touretzky are your own, and by preventing his expert opinion to be used on Wikipedia, you are in fact introducing your own WP:OR on the value of Dr. Touretzky as an expert.

• 28th Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience (November 1998): "Neuroscience Concepts in a New-Age Religion: Scientology's Model of the Mind"

• Razor Magazine (December 2003): "A Church's Lethal Contract", co-authored by Peter Alexander
• Queens Chronicle (February 2005): "Scientologists’ Stress Tests In Jackson Heights Raise Questions"
• Pittsburg Post-Gazette (July 2005): "Scientology comes to town"
• Keith Olbermann (April 17, 2006): "Countdown with Keith Olbermann"
  "But is he denying the tenets of Scientology? We will ask an expert."
• Keith Olbermann (July 23, 2007): "Countdown with Keith Olbermann"
  "[...] and Scientology expert Dr. David Touretzky [...]"
• Plus many more.

If you browse the materials to which Wikipedia links, you will notice that the material is very well sourced, down to the page number, and that, along with his status as an expert, and as published scientist, a research professor, that makes him a WP:RS.

Raymond Hill 15:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between using Touretzky's statements as reported by the press (i.e. by reliable sources) and considering his personal websites themselves as reliable sources. When an extremist like Touretzky makes a statement to the press we have a number of factors at work. 1) The extremist will tone down his rhetoric and limit himself to provable facts or sustainable opinions; 2) the reliable source should fact-check and only print those portions of the remarks that check out; and 3) the reliable source will also publish opposing or countering opinions or statements. That is what makes a reliable source "reliable". Touretzky's personal Scientology attack sites are under no similar constraints to 1) limit the rhetoric to provable fact or sustainable opinions; 2) do any fact-checking at all; or 3) publish opposing or countering opinions or statements. That is what makes Touretzky's sites not reliable. They are self-published. They are polemic. They are biased. They are unreliable. --Justanother 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the when the media use the term "expert" for people like Touretzky, they aren't actually lending credence to his expertise, they're simply relaying what Touretzky says about Touretzky. (It's bad form, of course, for a talk show host to call their guest an "alleged expert" or a "self-styled expert".) I could make a big flashy self-published website about broccoli and easily get media sources to call me an "expert on broccoli" if I kept at it long enough. It means nothing. wikipediatrix 16:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, your opinion of David Touretzky is just that, your opinion. You can't prevent Wikipedia from citing/using a reliable source because your opinion (unfounded, and libelous, I would say) of him is that he is an "extremist" (keep in mind that WP:BLP applies also to talk pages). You should note that David Touretzky is a published scientist. The site hosted by David Touretzky that you deem unreliable, actually cites extensively documents from all sources, Hubbard, government reports, studies, research papers, etc. I have no doubt that narconon-exposed site is a reliable source. Raymond Hill 22:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) San Francisco Bay Chronicle (June 9, 2004): "Scientology link to public schools", excerpt: "Recently, a San Francisco teacher complained to the district that Narconon was a Scientology front group. The teacher declined to be identified or quoted, citing Scientology's history of confronting critics. The teacher has teamed with David Touretzky, a computer science research professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and a free-speech advocate who runs an anti-Narconon Web site that includes some controversial material. "Together, they have pushed school officials to oust Narconon through a section on Touretzky's Web site called 'Narconon/Scientology Infiltration of the San Francisco Unified School District.' "
San Francisco Bay Chronicle (June 10, 2004): "Narconon put on notice by schools", excerpt: "A popular anti-drug program with ties to the Church of Scientology will be ousted after 13 years in the San Francisco schools unless it agrees to stop teaching what the district calls inaccurate and misleading information, Superintendent Arlene Ackerman said Wednesday."
So it would seem that school officials have deemed the information found at narconon.exposed.org good enough to actually end up ousting Narconon from teaching its dubious concepts about drugs in San Francisco schools. David Touretzky came out as the reliable source here, not Narconon. and he sure is a reliable source for Wikipedia as well. Raymond Hill 22:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I could make a big flashy self-published website about broccoli and easily get media sources to call me an "expert on broccoli" if I kept at it long enough. It means nothing. Someone said they were an expert and someone else believed them. Big deal. wikipediatrix 23:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter if Touretzky has complaints about Narconon on his site and it does not matter that he is quoted on occasion. His site is not RS and the school district was not using it as such. In fact the article states that the site contains "controversial" (read dubious) material. The school district consulted with real experts in addiction and health who felt, without any real study, I warrant, that the Narconon materials contained a very limited amount of unproven or dubious (in the eyes of those experts) material and asked that Narconon remove that material. It had very little to do with Touretzky as an "expert" but perhaps something to do with Touretzky as a meddlesome troublemaker attacking a very successful and well-regarded 13-year anti-drug program. The first (main) article is pretty positive overall. This all has nothing to do with Dianazene, of course. --Justanother 01:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix and Justanother, if you have an issue with the specific site which I'm citing as a source for the fact that Dianazene is used in the Narconon program, you're welcome to find an alternate source. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys, take it from someone that knows - there is no such thing as Dianazene - that was something from the 50's - it is NOT used anywhere. The Picture Book says niacin! Touretzky is wrong and that is just more evidence that his personal Scientology attack sites are not WP:RS. Speaks to his fact-checking, too. If you want it then YOU find an RS that says that Dianazene is currently used in Narconon (or anywhere, for that matter). --Justanother 03:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

After the trouble with the FDA in the '50s, I also doubt that the name Dianazene was used very much after that. AndroidCat 04:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dianazene appears to have been a formulation, a multi-vitamin marketed by the HASI through a shell corporation, same one that distributed e-meters. The present CofS is not in the vitamin business and there is no comparable formulation. This is just barely interesting history. --Justanother 04:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, the present CoS doesn't need to be in the vitamin business: G&G, Vibrant Life, MyVits, BodyHealth, Theta Vitamins, etc. AndroidCat 04:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? You might as well say that CofS is in the chiropractor business or the chimney sweep business (I think most LA sweeps are Scientologists). Makes no sense. --Justanother 06:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Entheta Vitamins? Ha. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable letter

The FDA letter on the xenu site is an extreme example of an unreliable primary source and cannot be used. Also the comments that are based on that letter, assuming it is a true copy of an actual letter, are OR. That is not what the letter says but there is no point in discussing what it says as it cannot enter the project as it violates WP:V. --Justanother 01:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're unhappy about xenu.net, you can WP:Verify it by requesting your own copy from the FBI. I hope you're not saying that the FBI is an unreliable primary source? AndroidCat 03:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of a primary source in that way is OR. --Justanother 03:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The FBI is an unreliable source? You need to explain further your position here... Why would you remove sourced material from this article? Raymond Hill 05:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That was not "sourced material". That was OR based on an unpublished primary source (granting that the letter is legit). Big difference. But more important, the source (xenu) is not RS so we cannot use the letter. RS is published material, not FOIA material, or interviews you go and do, or pictures that you take, etc. I quote: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." Emphasis as original. PUBLISHED. --Justanother 06:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And if you prefer WP:V to WP:RS, I quote: "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." PUBLISHED. Show me where that specific letter has been published in a reliable source. Show me where reference to that specific letter has been made in a reliable source? Otherwise, not RS and is OR. --Justanother 06:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. These are documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. The fact that you can't figure out how to obtain these document yourself doesn't mean that they can't be obtained. Excerpt from the document: "Assuming that, as finally marketed, the article will provide the equivalent of 100 milligrams of elemental iron in the daily dose and that the only claims made for the article in all of its promotional material is that it is for overcoming iron deficiency anemia and deficiencies of vitamins, B1, B2, C, and nicotinic acid, we have no other significant comment [sic] to offer," which means that yes, the product was approved for iron deficiency anemia, but certainly not for "radiation sickness." Raymond Hill 15:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the documents exist for anyone who wants to jump through the necessary FOIA hoops, "on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard", to quote Douglas Adams. A reader shouldn't have to file a FOIA request to verify content of a freakin' encyclopedia article. wikipediatrix 16:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, what part of PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED IN A RELIABLE SOURCE do you not understand? --Justanother 17:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)