Talk:Dianazene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dianazene article.
Article policies
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Scientology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
" 'Verifiable' [...] means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Thus this qualify. Do you see any provision that verifying it should be "easy enough", whereas "easy enough" would be interpreted arbitrarily by any particular editor? Of course not. It is a document from the FBI files, a reliable source, it is verifiable through FOIA. If you doubt the document, it's your responsibility to provide convincing arguments as to why. Raymond Hill 19:09, 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)

You are back with WP:RS now? Last paragraph I read you were invoking WP:V. Clearly, we won't come to an agreement, as you both fail to convince me that quoting the document from the FBI files violate Wikipedia's spirit on citations. I will bring the issue to a WP:RFC, as it's obvious we need outside opinions on the matter. I will notify you and Wikipediatrix when the WP:RFC is active. Raymond Hill 18:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That was a very petty thing to say - anyone can see he's very clearly invoked both WP:RS and WP:V. See you at the RfC. wikipediatrix 18:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
(EC) WP:RS is based on WP:V as WP:V is policy and WP:RS is guideline. They both, however, stress the basic nature of this project which it that only material previously published in a reliable source belongs here. That is basic and the letter violates that basic unless you know of a reliable published source. Do you? --Justanother 18:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Again: the FBI. Raymond Hill 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: 1) Are documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act compliant with WP:V; 2) Is the FBI a reliable source?

RfC tag removed, RfC will be reworded to address the specific document at the center of the dispute. Raymond Hill 13:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed edit, document which WP:RS and WP:V is disputed: online version, scan. Raymond Hill 23:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • User:Raymond Hill has improperly set up this RfC. Not only is this more of a religious matter than for Science/Math, no one here is actually questioning whether the FBI is a reliable source. I don't know if Mr.Hill has grossly misunderstood what is being said or if this is a deliberate attempt to spin the matter. I will assume good faith that he has simply misunderstood. wikipediatrix 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently, according to Wikipediatrix, I misunderstood the issue. As I go through the past discussion though, I fail to see where I did misunderstand:
  • Justanother, August 27: "it cannot enter the project as it violates WP:V" [1]
  • Justanother, August 28: "RS is published material, not FOIA material" [2]
  • Justanother, August 28: "Show me where that specific letter has been published in a reliable source" [3]
  • Wikipediatrix, August 28: "A reader shouldn't have to file a FOIA request to verify content of a freakin' encyclopedia article" [4]
  • Justanother, August 28: "Raymond, what part of PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED IN A RELIABLE SOURCE do you not understand?" [5]
  • Wikipediatrix, August 28: "That was a very petty thing to say - anyone can see he's very clearly invoked both WP:RS and WP:V" [6]
  • Justanother, August 28: "WP:RS is based on WP:V as WP:V is policy and WP:RS is guideline. [...] That is basic and the letter violates that basic unless you know of a reliable published source" [7]
Raymond Hill 20:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
As everyone else seems to have rapidly grasped, not all alleged letters or documents from the FBI can be taken as reliable sources per Wikipedia, which has nothing to do with the "you mean you don't think the FBI is reliable??" grandstanding. wikipediatrix 18:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand that that not all materials from the FBI files can be taken as reliable, and actually I would have disputed some materials from the FBI files which can't be used as solid source of information (i.e. letters from anonymous individuals are anecdotal at best). I will note though that in the current case, the disputed letter from the FBI file is from the Food and Drug Administration, and factoring in the comments so far, I still believe it can be used, I might consider another more specific RfC, I realize I did setup this one way too broad. Raymond Hill 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, I don't know where you come up with your assessment of the comments here. Of the two uninvolved parties, Enuja agrees with me and Rocksanddirt says that a generality regarding FBI documents does not work. That is not counting the three involved editors that disagree with you outright. The issue is one of the nature and rules of this project, not what we think it reasonable or true. --Justanother 22:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of the issue: 1) Are unpublished documents obtained by a non-reliable source through the Freedom of Information Act and self-published on a personal web page compliant with WP:V; 2) Straw man.

Clarification --Justanother 20:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me that in order for the documents to be usable, they would have to be published in a reliable source. For instance, if the NY Times did an article on Dianazene based off information in the document obtained through the FOIA, then it would pass verifiability. Otherwise it doesn't.HubcapD 20:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well, I went an re-read the verfiability policy and it puts a lot of emphasis both on reviewed sources and on accessibility of the source. Maybe it's just that I'm "tainted" by my history grad student spouse who loves the Freedom of Information Act, but my gut feeling is that, of course FOIA info is reliable, at least to say what the government was saying. But you were asking for comments from wikipedia editors, not their guts. As WP:V currently reads, no, we can't use FOIA information unless it's in a reliable source, and it's the published reliable source we'd be using, not the FOIA document. That's what happens when you are writing a tertiary text and not a secondary text. Now, if you were quoting a published FBI report, then it would probably be a reliable source, but that doesn't appear to be the case from the wording of this RfC. Enuja 22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Typically, things like government documents as sources depend on the nature of the documents. A report by the FDA on the safety and efficacy of some product has a review process and can be treated as a reliable source. A FOIA obtained memo directing some staff to prepare such a report, might only be good as a source that a report should have been done. I would imagine that information obtained from the FBI is going to have challenges regarding original research (as that's what they do there). (i.e., copies of an incidient report that lays out only what was found at the scene cannot be used to generate the assumptions used by the fbi for conducting whatever raid happened). So, my conclusion is that it depends on the document, and that each one needs to be treated individually, a blanket statement on appropriateness for the article doesn't work. --Rocksanddirt 23:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Further reading"

A perhaps new editor, User:Shinealight2007, has apparently done a Google Book search of the term "Dianazene" and discovered that it is mentioned in a number of books. It appears that all that is in those books is a mention of the seizure, that mention perhaps having been first made by Wallis in Sectarianism: Analyses of Religious and Non-Religious Sects in 1975. One of books specifically cites him inline. Shine at first listed them all as references although they all they have only the same one line. I removed that as unnecessarily redundant but left the Wallis ref. Shine replaced the ones I removed as "Further reading". I removed that as they are not "Further reading" as regards Dianazene as there is nothing "Further" in them. They are, some of them, hard-to-find, and the reader will not learn anything more about Dianazene if he goes to the effort. As "Further reading" they are a disservice. Shine put them back. I do not know why Shine feels a need to clutter the article with such, it is purposeless. We use references to write the article, we do not search Google Books for every instance of a term and call that a "reference" nor do we list everything we find at Google Books as "Further reading". Imagine if that approach were taken in the Physics article, "Further reading" would be 149,600 books, just on the term "Physics". What we appear to have here is an effort to make an extremely minor topic seem like more than it is. --Justanother 19:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Yea but in this case they go on to discuss similar things along the same topic. It hardly takes up any space there at the bottom of the page, I don't see the big deal here. Shinealight2007 20:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Every book goes "on to discuss similar things along the same topic". That is what books do. On that logic we would add all 149,600 books to the Physics article. The topic of this article is Dianazene and those books have nothing to add. We do not fill articles with extraneous matter to suit whatever motive we might have in doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanother (talk • contribs) 20:25, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the books give some additional background on the operations of the organization Scientology and the various groups it utilizes to suit its goals. I question your motives on Wikipedia. Are you yourself an operative of the Scientology organization? A simple yes or no would suffice. Thanks. Shinealight2007 20:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
  • No. I expect it to end with that and for you to respect the edits of other editors whether they hold the same biases as you or not. Please review WP:AGF, WP:NPA along with relevant policies WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. You are off to a rough start but not too late to correct course. --Justanother 22:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An FDA document, obtained from FBI files (originally through FOIA): Does its use violate "reliable source" and "verifiability" policies?

Disputed edit, document from which WP:RS and WP:V are disputed: online version, scan. Raymond Hill 13:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither xenu.net nor xenu-directory.net are reliable sources. They're both extreme religious-partisan anti-Scientology sites and based on the amount of wrong and misleading information on them, I see no reason to trust them. Do any reputable news media outlets or government agencies make these documents available online? wikipediatrix 14:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The document I have didn't come from xenu.net, neither from xenu-directory.net — regardless of your opinion on these web sites, the document exists. Raymond Hill 14:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - If the document was not obtained by and published in a reliable source then, no, we cannot use it. The fact that it exists is irrelevant; for the purposes of this project, it does not exist until a reliable source tells us that it exists. The FBI has not published the document (FOIA is not publication), the FBI has not told us it exists; a non-reliable source is telling us that it exists in an FBI file. That is not good enough, not good enough by a long shot. Not even close. --Justanother 13:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is where I found the document: www.paperlessarchives.com. Raymond Hill 15:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a link to the specific document on that site and we will talk about it from there. I believe that you originally found the document elsewhere and that is what the article history shows. If this new site has it then please provide the link. --Justanother 15:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
My statement: Here is where I found the document. Your answer: I believe that you originally found the document elsewhere and that is what the article history shows. You are implying that I am lying, which is not very nice. Again, here is where I got my copy of the document: www.paperlessarchives.com/hubbard.html. Raymond Hill 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It's also listed on the fbi.gov's site, Federal Bureau of Investigation - Freedom of Information Privacy Act, as "Church of Scientology/L. Ron Hubbard -- 2,518". You can go to the FBI headquarters to consult or obtain these documents. Raymond Hill 16:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, maybe we are misunderstanding each other. I do NOT see that document on www.paperlessarchives.com/hubbard.html so what are you talking about? Can you point at somewhere on the internet other than a biased anti-Scientology site where I can see the document or can you not? Not where I can order it, where I can see it right now? --Justanother 19:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I pointed out to you how you can obtain it. WP:V doesn't mean you have to have the document online, it means that it can be verified, which is the case here. I hope that you actually go ahead and obtain these documents, you might be surprised to find out that the sites you characterize as "biased" reported accurately an online version of the document. Raymond Hill 19:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, you continue to miss the point, "how [I] can obtain it" is immaterial - it is not published. PUBLISHED. --Justanother 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To expand in response to your personal note, I am not interested in obtaining unpublished FOIA documents so that I can do my own original research in minutia. I have found it a much more fruitful endeavor to make my research be in the area of studying and carefully applying Hubbard's teachings and discovering for myself if they have any worth. Not trying to uncover minor foibles about Hubbard, the man. However Wikipedia is not the place for me to report the results of my research and it is not the place for you to report the results of yours. --Justanother 20:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You stated: "how I can obtain it is immaterial". Notice that I was simply answering to your "where I can see it right now." You further state: "it is not published". I just pointed you to the FBI web site, where you can order the document, or visit the headquarter to consult it: it's published, by the FBI. The FBI document is a copy of a letter from the FDA. You state: "not the place for you to report the results of [your research]". Exactly, that's why I am not doing it. If you think I am doing it, be specific, or else it's just a broad accusation with no basis that doesn't have place here. Raymond Hill 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, FOIA is NOT published. It is AVAILABLE. Not published. Big difference. That is the point that you persist in missing. --Justanother 22:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not a good reference to substantiate the claim as is attempted here. The copy of the letter in question does not clearly confirm that the drug was approved for such use only-it's bordering on WP:OR to make that conclusion. Letters to direct inquiries like this do not, as far as I can believe, act as official drug approval at the FDA. This was an interim communication--not an official drug approval. Besides, if this were a noteworthy document other published references should be found describing it--they would serve as the reference here, not the original document. Highly POV adversarial websites, where this document was retranscribed, are not generally considered good sources for controversial claims. More mainstream, uninvolved sources are generally needed for the reference. Original documents, which this letter appears to be, must be interpreted in their broader context and with enough working knowledge of FDA policy and procedure to understand their implications. Editors at WP are not qualified to interpret original documents generally--that's why secondary sources are required. From a general knowledge standpoint this letter does not in any manner resemble a final official drug approval document to me.Professor marginalia 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This seems like the kind of discussion that journalists might validly have. WP is not about OR. I don't see how the document, whatever its provenance, can be a valid source for WP. It does not speak for itself. It would need to be interpreted by a reliable source. DCDuring 02:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)