Talk:Purification Rundown/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV checklist

Problems to be overcome in order to achieve NPOV:

  1. No neutral references are cited (this may be difficult to overcome)
  2. The article is not about the Purification Rundown, per se, but about criticism of it. Article must focus on the titular subject

Re. point 2. The article might sound critical, but it's accurate (I say that having been made to do the "rundown" twice).

  • If the article cannot be sufficiently fleshed out, the proper course of action may be to merge it into Narconon.

--Fernando Rizo T/C 19:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I got the second bullet covered I'll see what I can do about references. That makes two articles I need to go to the library over ;-) Wikired5 05:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

While it's true that we have more criticism of it than anything else right now, I think the solution has to be creating an article that includes the criticism and the support. With the understanding that the non-criticism sections of the article are going to be expanded, I've edited the intro so that it discloses early the fact that outside of Scientology, the Purif is considered not just unhelpful but dangerous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Series Template

Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 15:55, 10 January 2006 (PST)

Its probably good, I like it, LOL. others like it too.Terryeo 16:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Subjects is too anti-Point of View

I am going to remove all reference to and use of "subjects" in this article because a "subject" implies a relationship to the overseeing body which is not entirely volentary. In the case of the Purification Rundown, not only are the "subjects" volentary, but they have paid good money for the activities of the purification rundown. Would you call a man sitting in a chair getting a haircut a "subject?" Would you call a person who pays for and uses a health spa a "subject?" The word has overtones which, I believe, don't apply in this context. I'm going to change that element of this article. Terryeo 16:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

here we go again

Terryeo, you can't just stick a link to the Purification Rundown's official site after the first three words of the article, namely "The Purification Rundown...". There's no statement there to be sourced. And I know you know that, and yet here I am AGAIN wasting my time typing this to tell you what you already know, which is why I rarely bother discussing these matters on discussion pages with you anymore. wikipediatrix 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wasting your time indeed, why don't you go back to your office and blame the walls some more? Terryeo 04:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

An action?

Terryeo, your edit seemed to indicate a singular action (such as going to a sauna), rather than a series of actions (sauna, taking vitamins, etc.) So I changed it to a "program". Ronabop 05:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia doesn't have to be fair"

Raymond Hill is not quite right when he says "Wikipedia doesn't have to be fair" - there IS such a thing as WP:UNDUE and it's extremely important to avoid giving "Undue Weight" to criticism from people who don't really amount to much outside of their being a critic (this would disqualify most of the major Scn critics).

If my Uncle Ned made a slick professional looking website called "Broccoli is bad", no one would dream of citing it on the Broccoli article for a millisecond. Yet if my Uncle Ned made a slick professional looking website called "Scientology is bad", you can bet it would be quoted, cited as used as a source on lots of these Scientology articles.

We don't need to give undue weight to the relatively small "expose the global scam!" contigent, whose views are actually largely out of the mainstream. Most citizens think Scientology is kooky, but the average Joe does NOT share the vehement rage and anti-Scn zeal as exhibited by most of the usual gang of "career critics" who have become every bit as tunnel-visioned, obsessive and kooky as the "cult" they profess to oppose.

On the other hand, we also shouldn't be giving undue weight to what Scientology says about Scientology - we should avoid all glowing and gushing POV commentary and statistics that read like an advertisement for the Church, and trivia should be kept to the barest of bare minimums. wikipediatrix 03:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Broccoli"? "Vehement rage"? "Anti-Scn zeal"? Do they edit on Wikipedia? If yes, please report them, hateful bigots filled with "vehement rage" sure would sure be unpleasant to deal with on Wikipedia.
Now, the claim that the Purification Rundown runs out drug residues, toxins, and "radiation" (radiation? how are electromagnetic waves stored in the first place? Does that make me a bigot to question that?) is not supported by any evidence, so clearly User:Braveheart's edits gave the impression that there was basis to that, while there is none. None of the supplied references provided evidence that drug residues, toxins, and "radiation" are run out by sauna and vitamin regimens. I'm sorry if it feels unfair to you, and certainly to the proponents of the program (although they had over 40 years to provide solid evidences) but reality has this habit of not caring about our feelings (unfortunately :-( Incidentally, the Church of Scientology would agree with that, since it calls its own program a "spiritual activity" (does that make me "tunnel-visioned" to note this?) Don't you think the narconon-exposed.org web site contains a lot of excellent references (result of an excellent research work) concerning the validity of the Purification Rundown program that could be used for this article?
Braveheart still doesn't mention that FASE and IADS are Scientology. You think that's important to mention? Do you think the references related to IADS and FASE are up to Wikipedia standards when it comes to science? Do you think Crinnion and Krop are appropriate references just because they are on pubmed? (Braveheart argument). Does being listed on pubmed mean that the paper was peer-reviewed? Does it mean it was published in a reputable journal? Do you think we should bypass John DeSio article and make ourself a synthesis on the scientific validity of the Purification Rundown?
Do you think Wikipedia gives undue weight to criticism? Since Wikipedia articles use the media, and books as reference, to you think the media, and books on Scientology, taken as a whole, give undue weight to Scientology criticism? Yes? No? If "Yes", is it the fault of any Wikipedia editors that the press unduly criticize Scientology? Raymond Hill 05:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I don't get your first paragraph at all. Then you're going on at great length about matters that aren't relevant to what I was saying. Then you keep asking if I think you're tunnel visioned and stuff like that, as if I was talking about you when I said that phrase before. (I wasn't.) Finally you get to my point at the end when you say "Do you think Wikipedia gives undue weight to criticism?", which is a weird thing to ask because I think I just spent four paragraphs saying exactly that. And your final question about fault and the press is also irrelevant to me - that should have no bearing on how we conduct ourselves as editors. wikipediatrix 05:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair

We need to have a section soportive of the program if we have a section critical of the program. And we need to give equal space to both sides. All coins have two sides. Bravehartbear 11:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have to be fair, there is no such a thing as "We need to have a section soportive [sic] of the program". Wikipedia reports reliable, factual information. And when there are claims of science, this is made quite easy, as there are guidelines for that on Wikipedia. The references you provided:
  • Self-published (IADS and FASE didn't publish their findings in any reputable, peer-reviewed papers, if yes, point to this). You can't use these self-published papers, unless it is disclosed that: they are self-published, and the organizations behind these papers have links to Scientology (we have references in new articles for that);
  • Krop: published in 1998 in an non-reputable publication, it involve one single subject, it's far from being relevant enough to be included in this article;
  • Crinnion: A real scientist noted: "A real study would say how many subjects were included and how the claimed effects were measured. What we have here sounds like anecdotal observations, not a scientific research study. This piece would not pass peer review in any reputable journal." So was this published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal? No.
  • This paper: this unpublished study involves seven subjects, no control group, and furthermore it clearly asserts in it that "no relationships can be inferred between the PCB contamination found and the observed symptoms, or between reduction in these levels and the improvements noted following treatment".
You will find more information on how to gauge how specific references comply with "reliable sources on Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine." Raymond Hill 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My point:

  • Self Publish: I did stated it was self published but I will state those links more clearly.
  • Medical Journal Is a medical journal from a goverment site and a reputable publication. Dot gov sites belong to the goverment, this is the site were all medical journals are published. If you think is not revelant that is just your POV.
  • Crinnion: Is also a goverment site and a medical journal. If you think it will not hold peer review that is just your POV!
  • This paper: Ok I will note that this is an unpublished preliminary study.

Thank You Bravehartbear 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to represent the mainstream of reliable studies. Pro and contra doesn't need to be presented in same length "to be fair". When 99% of reliable studies and reports are negative the article has to reflect that. For now I will at least delete the word "scientific" for this sub section wich is sourced mainly with a front group and evereything else but scientific. I don't agree with this "ridiculous advertisement" at all. Just checked one source wich is provided for the claim "support by politician" and their was only a former cop cited. However, I will now only delete the peak of this glowing POV. Hopefully someone else rewrites it completly. -- Stan talk 06:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I find so funny the POV tag

In this article we have the POV of some profesional and doctors in the support section against others in the critical section. Both sides are POV. In fact most Scientology critisims is POV. Now you know how I feel. Bravehartbear 07:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

the difference is liability of sources in this sections. -- Stan talk 07:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ... and if support section would be sourced proberly I would remove it. And you don't find statements in the critical part from some unimportant people wich say "I did it, it was not helpfull and I felt really bad afterwards. I think its bad." wich would be a counterpart to the POV Statements in the support section. -- Stan talk 07:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it's inappropriate to use Wikipedia as an advertisement vehicle for a Scientology-backed 'treatment' which has no scientific basis (I can't emphasize enough), and which has been described as dangerous by many medical experts. John DeSio's article: "When reviewed, the studies that recount this great success do not meet the basic standards for scientific research that a high school student would be forced to follow in freshman biology". It's not about "sides," there is simply no scientific evidence in support of the claims attached to the "Purification Rundown." The article should simply notes that, through its various fronts, Scientology has attempted to give an semblance of scientific basis to its Purification Rundown where it is used in a secular setting (while mentioning some of the references provided by Braveheart), but to this day none of the claims have been supported in any reputable, peer-reviewed papers. Raymond Hill 17:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Although I agree in principle that this stuff is way too advertising-like in its presentation, I have to take strong exception to your idea that the lack of a scientific basis is what makes its inclusion inappropriate. Even the Flat Earth Society gets all the article space they need to make their case, however kooky and unsupported by Science it may be. So does Homeopathy. wikipediatrix 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you see a support section in Homeopathy ? I don't. But I don't see a critical one likewise. Why? Because the critical stuff is not moved to the end in one section but right in every section.For example lead: The hypothesis that extreme dilution makes any pharmaceutical more powerful is inconsistent with the principles of chemistry and physics as well as the observed dose-response relationships of conventional medicines. The scientific community asserts there is no convincing scientific evidence supporting the contention that water or alcohol retain any memory of a substance. Its sad that every fact needs to be moved in a controversy part here and afterwards editors are moaning "oh, here is sooo much critism" even if Scientology is much more controversial because there is not only the pseudoscience stuff but also the cult part.-- Stan talk 22:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hui, although there is a lot of criticism everywhere in the body and lead, half of the page is dedicated exclusivly to Homeopathy Criticism (: ... and no support section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan En (talk • contribs) 11:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Support for the program"

These gratuitous quotes from nobodies are not only unnecessary, they actually detract from the intended effect of promoting the Purification Rundown: we have quotes from a couple of New York city councilmen (hardly a bastion of trustworthiness) and New York Post columnist Steve Dunleavy (Neither Dunleavy nor the Post are exactly beloved in the world of journalism). That's what's known as damning with faint praise. If these are the only people we can find who are willing to say nice things about the Purification Rundown (Tom Cruise and a few dumb firemen notwithstanding), that's hardly a dazzling press kit. wikipediatrix 21:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the "favorable" studies, I will drop references here as I gather them.
  • New York Press, May 2007, in an article titled "The rundown on the Scientology's Purification Rundown":
    "But an examination of the records and discussions with experts finds a program lacking full scientific testing, that has been booted out of other cities, that uses potentially dangerous amounts of vitamins and that Hubbard himself admitted was not medicine, among other concerns. Multiple experts in the field of toxicology from across the country were contacted for this story. Eleven replied, though some asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal. Of those 11, not one would vouch for the program’s effectiveness or would recommend it to patients, often calling it 'dangerous' or 'quackery.' [...]    "
  • In Slate, Oct. 2004, in an article titled "Poisons, Begone!":
    "Some favorable articles have been written about this approach by apparently well-credentialed physicians. However, according to James Dillard, an assistant clinical professor at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and clinical director of Columbia's Rosenthal Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, there is a "disconnect" between the studies described in many of these articles and the conclusions presented. The studies themselves typically lack adequate sample sizes, well-matched control groups, randomization, and other basic elements of experimental design; Dillard calls them "anecdotal," at best. "
  • In San Francisco Chronicle, June 2004, in an article titled "Scientology link to public schools":
    " 'It's pseudoscience, right up there with colonic irrigation,' said Dr. Peter Banys, director of substance abuse programs at the VA Medical Center in San Francisco. Dr. Igor Grant, professor of psychiatry and director of the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at UC San Diego, agreed: 'I'm not aware of any data that show that going into a sauna detoxifies you from toxins of any kind.' Three other addiction experts contacted by The Chronicle echoed their skepticism."
  • Boston Herald, March 1998, in an article titled "Inside the Church of Scientology: Scientology reaches into schools through Narconon"
    " 'The idea of sweating out poisons is kind of an old wives' tale,' said William Jarvis, a professor of public health at Loma Linda University in Southern California. 'It's all pretty hokey.' Salt and water are the only substances that the Purification Rundown removes from the body, according to a 1990 U.S. Food and Drug Administration report, Jarvis said. 'Narconon's program is not safe,' the Oklahoma Board of Mental Health said in a 1992 rejection of Chilocco New Life Center, a Scientology residential hospital on an Indian reservation in Newkirk, Okla. 'No scientifically well-controlled studies were found that documented the safety of the Narconon program,' the board said. [...]"
There should not be a section called "Support for components of the program", because these studies are in no way supportive of any part of the program, as they are found to be flawed in the first place. (A sample size one individual cannot be called a study in support of anything.) Raymond Hill 13:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC) (Updated 21:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)).
Wuao, so it your opinion that those research papers are fawed? Where is the research that points out that the purif is quakery? There isn't! So what we have is a bunch of opinion. I don't think that the Medicos that did those papers will like you putting down their integrity. You don't have the right to deny their research just because opinion. The opinion of one profesor is no better than the views of these medicos. You can't drop the line because you found conflicting evidence. You can post their opinion but that's all. We are not here to judge just to report. Respect the view of these medicos, don't take sides.Bravehartbear 10:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Raymond Hill cited sources wich state that "those research papers are flawed". His opinion isn't important but his reliable sources are important. It has nothing to do with respect of the view of these medicos but is an evaluation if they are appropriate sources for WP. The article should reflect the mainstream opinion of independent scholars and scientists with scientifical and peer-reviewed publications. I fear if we present this sources appropriatly and mention that this studies are highly controversial and mainly self-published with a lot of "claims" it would be moved in the critical section anyway ;) . It is similar to the scammer Matthias_Rath who also presented a lot of false or misleading "scientifical" studies wich are not introduced in his article. -- Stan talk 11:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Raymonds first statements doesn't even mention wich research he is talking about and who did it. It is a big generality trying to put an umbrella in a subject. What research done by whom? There have been many reasearch paper done. If you want to put a research down you need to specify wich research are you talking about.
The second statement about toxicologist it was asked by a journalist. Did the journalist provided proper information and documentation to able the toxicologists to awnser? What was exactly the question? Does LRH program works? The anwser and the question could have be out of content. Once again no specifics.
"The article should reflect the mainstream opinion of independent scholars and scientists." It seems that these mainstream opinions of independent scholars and scientists are starting to lean towards in favor of the program.
More to come.Bravehartbear 20:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Although I sympathize with the unnecessary beating Scientology takes on most other articles, Bravehartbear, there's just no getting around the fact that the medical and scientific aspects of Scientology are simply not accepted by mainstream medicine and mainstream science, not even a little bit, not even in part. A few random doctors and scientists here and there may or may not be praising it, but "research papers" aren't good enough. No one has defended any part of Hubbard's writings in any legitimate medical or science journal, yet there is considerable evidence to the contrary that some of this stuff is inadvisable at best from a mainstream perspective. I'll cut Scientologists a mile of Slack when it comes to their right to their own religious beliefs, but I draw the line at dangerous quack medicine that's supported by absolutely no one of any importance. wikipediatrix 00:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! At least you are honest and you are not beating me down. :-) Bravehartbear 11:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the 1950s?

There is a sentence that claims the Purif has been offered since the 1950s. This needs to be deleted. The Purif was not offered to the public until the 1980s. S. M. Sullivan 04:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Art Carey, Philadelphia Inquirer

Those bits seem to lack many attributes of an actual news article and have much more in common with CoS's frequent American Chronicle press releases. AndroidCat (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Blah, those are not press releases and don't have nothing in common the American Chronicle, those have been only published in the Phily Enquirer by Art Carey . So stop making false allegations with no evidence.Bravehartbear (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Intro only one point of view

The intro doesn't express that there are also medical doctors that support the program.Bravehartbear (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How many aren't involved in selling the program? AndroidCat (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
One of the sources provided is hardly reliable. The other source only suggests one medical doctor who supports the program. The source is also questionable, as The Sacramento News and Review is a lifestyle magazine. This isn't a "small minority", it is only one person.
Other than that, there is no evidence that any unbiased doctor with legitimate medical training supports the program.
--68.107.123.14 (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at this, and until other secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources are provided, I have to agree with 68.107.123.14 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Procedure (The Scientologist?)

In the section "Procedure" it describes the person doing the program as the "Scientologist" when in fact many people that do this program are not "Scientologist". The program is awailable from many different sources, even some Christian minister are sponsoring it.Bravehartbear (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Which Christian ministers? --Thesacrificebunt (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Deceptive section

Support for components of the program seems deceptive. The first two studies are supporting sauna in general, not the specific (and massive) application as a component of the Purification Rundown. "Support for things that the Purification Rundown also happens to use"? (The last with FASE/International Academy of Detoxification Specialists patting itself on the back is just plain deceptive, but that's covered in the paragraph.) AndroidCat (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, that section is a synthesis of original research. Find a source that says those items support the Purification Rundown and not the vague "components". AndroidCat (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with AndroidCat (talk · contribs) and with this removal of content, pending secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know that citing one person in support of the program is credible or worthwhile, and the in the support section, numerous instances of the use of the program are listed; I don't know that the program being used qualifies as support of it. 72.77.20.163 (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Increase IQ by how much?

The article contains the sentence: The Church of Scientology says that the rundown can improve personality and increase IQ by up to 15-30 points.[12] but I find no such statement in the reference. Let alone the fact that "up to" are weasel words that need a RS. I propose deleting "...by up to 15-20 points." unless someone can provide a source. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Purification Rundown

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Purification Rundown's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Atack":

  • From Disconnection: Atack, Jon (1990). A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientology, Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed. Lyle Stuart / Carol Publishing Group. p. 35. ISBN 0-8184-0499-X.
  • From Fair Game (Scientology): Jon Atack - General report on Scientology

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry everyone, this was my typo - now fixed.MartinPoulter (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"In the Media" list

This list (seemingly an aribtrary list of press mentions) is useful but belongs here in talk rather than in the article itself. Moved:

MartinPoulter (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Progress requires removal of primary sources

A lot of this article is original research based on self-published or primary sources. This refers both to the Touretsky research and the links to Purif promotional sites nydetox.org and secondchancescientology.com . I don't think the article would be worse without them, as the same points are made in secondary literature. Having spent some time on putting in better references, I intend to do a clearup in the coming days (whenever I get around to it) so that the article is reliant on secondary sources. Wikipedia policy says that self-published sources can be used as sources for their own content, when that source has been mentioned by a reliable secondary source in conjunction with the article's subject (as well as other criteria). There may be a justification for keeping primary sources in for that purpose, but I'll leave it up to other editors to make that argument if they think appropriate. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming of criticism section

There has to be a better name for this than "criticism". I'm not saying "Assessment by experts" is it. The tradition of "support" and "criticism" sections is a Wikipedia band-aid that I hope we can get past. The point of the section is how the Purif has been received by the scientific/medical community. I see no reason to put positive assessments in a different section from negative assessments. In fact doing so makes it harder to have a flowing narrative. I think the important thing is whether the reaction is the type of source: from a scientific authority, from a public body etc. The point of the criticism in the article isn't that it's critical: that's incidental to its true purpose. The naming of sections is something I always find difficult, so I welcome suggestions.MartinPoulter (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "reception"? ←Spidern→ 22:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's an improvement, and it'll do for now. I'd eventually like to separate the medical authority reaction from the participant reaction from the local authority reaction, as those have different significance. Thanks for the great work you're doing on this article, by the way. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations to be added to the article...

AP and Post Wire Services (April 19, 2007). "Crui$ing for Cash". New York Post. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Staff (April 19, 2007). "Cruise to detox NY". Sunday Times, Australia. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Smith, Kyle (April 20, 2007). "Don't Be Tricked By $ci-Fi Tom-Foolery". New York Post. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Seifman, David (April 20, 2). "Crui$e is 'Detox' of De Town". New York Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Sanchez, Hazel (April 20, 2007). "Cruise Thinks Scientology Can Save 9/11 Responders". WCBS-TV. CBS. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Staff (April 20, 2007). "Tom Cruise holds fundraiser for Scientology 9/11 detox project". WABC-TV. ABC. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Friedman, Roger (April 19, 2007). "Tom Cruise Fires Up Negative Feelings". FOX News. FOX. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

These should be incorporated into the article. Smee 08:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

And another [1], New York Press, 31.5.2007. --Tilman 18:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please change or delete link 18: [2] because it goes nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.179.84 (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Several sources on the Second Chance center in Albuquerque: [3] MartinPoulter (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The Purification Rundown, the Purif, the rundown or the program

The Purification Rundown is refered to in the article in at least these four ways. Aside from the first line and quotes, should it be normalized through out the article, i.e. always refer to it in the same way. If so, how should we refer to it?

  • Option 1 - Always refer to it as "the Purification Rundown"
  • Option 2 - Always refer to it as "the Purif"
  • Option 3 - Always refer to it as "the rundown"
  • Option 4 - Always refer to it as "the program"
  • Option 5 - Leave it as is
  • Supplement Option A - Always refer to it as "the Purification Rundown" at the first mention of a major section.

(Note: where the program is refered to as "it" or some other pronoun no change would be made.)

I'm favoring option 4 with supplement option A. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Niacin

(I don't know where to put this comment.) The statement "higher doses of niacin can be fatal" is false and should be removed. Presumably, this means "higher than 15mg", the RDA. However, many doctors and nutrition specialists recommend up to 2000 mg niacin per day. This dose is harmless and is known to improve health. It is true "time release" niacin can be harmful to the liver, however there appears to be no evidence that large doses of pure niacin are harmful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate pomeroy (talk • contribs) 01:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I have moved this comment to its own section, since it didn't seem directly related to the comment it was paired with. Grayfell (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

An IP-address user has made unexplained changes to the text, removing sourced material and in one case replaced the text with new positive content. I tried to revert, but unfortunately I managed to bugg it up. Could a mod have a look at it and revert to the version from this morning? Thimbleweed (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Shall we revert to MonkBot version of 23:15, 23 July 2014‎ ? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purification_Rundown&oldid=618190001) Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a great deal of unreferenced and uncited propaganda claims being made in the article, section New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project makes unsupported claims to the point where the article looks like it was written by the Scientology corporation.
Is anyone working on cleaning up this article and removing the blatant promotion and, well, outright fraudulent claims? Damotclese (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purification_Rundown#Honorary_New_York_Firefighter.E2.80.99s_Helmet_awarded_to_L._Ron_Hubbard is particularly odd. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done Reverted to Monkbot version. Article still needs much work, as Damotclese points out. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Balaenoptera musculus. I expect that the article was originally written and periodically edited by the Scientology corporation prior to legitimate editors discovering it and taking an interest in correcting the [[WP:SPAM | blatant promotion]. With Scientology's Narconon fake front getting hit by pending criminal indictments in Oklahoma and endless civil lawsuits, Scientology is starting to seek "halfway house" classification for their frauds as opposed to "drug treatment" so there is some degree of need to fix the article. What's needed is an editor with time. :) Damotclese (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
NP. I don't see a lot of content here that isn't already in the Narconon article, which already covers the mechanics of the 'purif', and already covers groups that are just like Narconon but have other names. Perhaps we should just nominate this article for deletion? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I would be in favor of nomination for deletion, but also to create an alias link so that searches for "purification rundown" redirect to Narconon. That is an excellent idea, that would safe effort from editors. Damotclese (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's an unworkable fraud

An editor removed the word "controversial" with the comment (The word controversial is not appropriate. The US DOD is using this detox pgm to help vets with Gulf War Syndrome. This is an effective detoxification program.) That is not true, the Scientology enterprise makes these fraudulent claims, and while they have managed to defraud their way in to a small number of governmental agencies, (1) there is zero scientific evidence that the Scientology quack medical rituals described in the extant article actrually work, (2) any actual scientific, clincal testing of the fraud has been deemed my medical science to be too unethical and too dangerous to actually perform on humans, (3) the unscientific quack medical concept of "detoxification" is not a scientifically-valid idea predicated in any legitimate research, among other reasons why Scientology's frauds are "controversial." Indeed, the unevidenced claims made by Scientology in the commission of these rituals have been debunked for centuries. It does not work, there is overwhelming evidence that the notions are fraudulent. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Purification Rundown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional to-do items

Removed this from article

This is misleading to say the least in it's current form. Needs refactor to fit into the article.

Scientific study has shown that niacin assists the body in ridding itself of toxic and harmful chemicals in some situations.<ref name="niacin">{{cite web | title=Vitamin B3 (Niacin) | url=http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/vitamin-b3-000335.htm | }}</ref>{{Clarifyme|date=April 2008}}

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Purification_Rundown/Archive_1&oldid=1143336192"