Talk:Downtown Medical

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Downtown Medical 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.)
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible.
Wikipedians in New York City may be able to help!

Contents

[edit] sole purpose of the purification rundown

The article states: "However, the Purification Rundown is also used by Narconon and practicing Scientologists toward removing drug residues from the body."

However Scientology material is clear on the "sole purpose" of the purification rundown:

"The Purification Rundown has as its sole purpose the handling of the restimulative effects of drugs and toxic residuals on a Spiritual Being. The Purification Rundown is a Spiritual activity based on and administered according to the doctrine and practices of the religion of Scientology as set forth in the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and adopted by the Church. No part of the Rundown is intended as the diagnosis, prescription for, or treatment of any bodily or physical condition or ill."

Source is HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE BULLETIN OF 21 MAY 1980.

So the firefighters were sold an intro into the "religion of Scientology" and not even a pretended (bogus) cure.

Mgormez 01:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] An uncited portion of a sentence

This is uncited. I know it to be not only untrue, invalid and false, but know the technology of the Purification Rundown and have (probably) all of its technology and have read (probably) all of it. "and from their body thetans." Plain wrong. Uncited. Untrue. However, rather than simply remove it I have placed it here for "discussion and citing" because that is Wikipedia policy. Terryeo 22:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC) I see the vilifying quote was placed by an anonomous user. Terryeo 22:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, Wikipedia policy is divided on this: some think that removals should be discussed and editors should "assume good faith", and some believe that uncited material that has a hint of being untrue should be removed immediately.--Gloriamarie 20:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That introduction

Presently states: "Downtown Medical is a controversial Scientology clinic on 139 Fulton Street in New York City," and the word "controversial" is, of course, uncited. Therefore it is untrue and original research on the part of an editor unless cited. WP:NOR is the applicable policy. Besides which, simply removing the single word would make the article more encyclopedic and less biased. If there is controversy, then that should be presented with its appropriate citations, deeper in the article. Terryeo 08:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now we have a publication supporting the opening statement. However, the article does not present the information in a neutral sort of way. The article presents every jot of negative information from the article but does not present any other portion of the news article used for the opening statment. Where is the controversy? To have controversy there must be 2 sides to it. The news article states, Cruise, however, has defended the venture, claiming, "More than 500 individuals have recovered health and job fitness through this project." which would be the opposite side of the controversy and should likewise be presented in the article. Terryeo 18:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is sufficiently neutral for such a pseudoscientific subject. There is no proof of Cruise's claims, and there is much scientific evidence that indicates Downtown Medical's "purification" techniques are hogwash. If there's any further reworking to be done to the article, it's to be further delineating these points, not giving lip service to Tom Cruise. wikipediatrix 19:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It would incredibly stupid for Wikipedia to give lip service to anyone, the idea so violates NPOV as to be disgusting. However, when a newspaper publishes "More than 500 have been helped at downtown medical" then that, you see, can help round out the previous statement which says that there is controversy. Controversy does not exist in a vacuum, that is, there must necessarily be two sides presented. One side is presented. You suggest that side be more fully presented. Well, if it is more fully published then it should be more fully presented. However, NPOV also requires the other side be, likewise, presented. Terryeo 22:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The newspaper didn't say 500 people have been helped, it simply said that Tom Cruise said that. wikipediatrix 22:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That's right. The newspaper says that Cruise said that. The newspaper article is the citation on which the article introduces the clinic is "controversial". The newspaper article has a photo of Cruise in its lead, the article makes several comments about Cruise, presenting certain information. Our article does likewise, but stops short of anything but the anti-clinic information which the newspaper article states. The controversial aspect remains unstated in our article. Missing is what, exactly, is being controversied about, what the 2 sides of the controversy are. Only one side of the controversy (from the newspaper article) is presented here, in our article. Terryeo 01:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe the problem is that there are two sides-- Tom Cruise says it works, many scientific bodies have said that it does not work and there's no proof. If there was proof that it works, for example a study where 500 were cured of previous problems, that would certainly be included. The controversy arises from the fact that these claims are made and no proof given. I don't see what the controversy is about the controversy :) --Gloriamarie 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. If there is a controversy it must have two sides. But then maybe it is the Scientology treatments that are controversial, not Downtown Medical itself. Steve Dufour 03:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations to be added to the article...

AP and Post Wire Services. "Crui$ing for Cash", New York Post, April 19, 2007. 

Staff. "Cruise to detox NY", Sunday Times, Australia, April 19, 2007. 

Smith, Kyle. "Don't Be Tricked By $ci-Fi Tom-Foolery", New York Post, April 20, 2007. 

Seifman, David. "Crui$e is 'Detox' of De Town", New York Post, April 20, 2. 

Sanchez, Hazel. "Cruise Thinks Scientology Can Save 9/11 Responders", WCBS-TV, CBS, April 20, 2007. 

Staff. "Tom Cruise holds fundraiser for Scientology 9/11 detox project", WABC-TV, ABC, April 20, 2007. 

Friedman, Roger. "Tom Cruise Fires Up Negative Feelings", FOX News, FOX, April 19, 2007. 

These should be incorporated into the article. Smee 08:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Merge NY Rescue Workers Detoxification Project

The New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project stub article is about exactly the same topic, but lacks sources. I suggest that any unique information from that article be merged here and that article be replaced with a redirect. AndroidCat 04:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm presuming that no one has any objections, so I'm moving across bits from the NY Detox article (and expanding/rearranging in general). Once that's done shortly, I'll post when I'm done, wait a few days, then replace the NY Detox article with a REDIR to here. BTW, my preference is for one article, but I don't care which one is the main article and which is the redirect. Any preferences...? AndroidCat 23:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Just noticed this. I will note that Downtown Medical (based in NY) is not a non-profit entity (someone correct if I am wrong), while New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project — which is an assumed business name for International Academy of Detoxification Specialists (based in LA), I have a reference for this somewhere — is a non-profit corporation. It might be that Downtown Medical's big client is IADS (364K in 2005), but not sure we can't say they are the same. Raymond Hill 15:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Now that everything is in one place, and there's quite a number of new references to incorporate, the exact identities of the players (Downtown vs. NY Rescue Detox vs. International Association of Detoxification Specialists vs. et al) can be straightened out. AndroidCat 15:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
John Desio's "Rundown on the purification rundown": "... Downtown Medical’s parent group, the International Academy of Detoxification Specialists ..." (probably from the incorporation documents?). From this reference, we can say they are the same I guess — and therefore merging makes sense. Raymond Hill 15:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest "International Academy of Detoxification Specialists" (IADS) as the main article, since "New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project" is in itself a program from IADS, and Downtown Medical is a subsidiary of some sort (as per John DeSio's article. Raymond Hill 16:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bit that might need merging: It is endorsed by New York City Councilman Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens), who also sponsored a bill to honor Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard. AndroidCat 14:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)