Talk:Citizens Commission on Human Rights/archive1

Consequences of quoting and credibility

One must also consider the date in which L. Ron Hubbard wrote this, and thus the possiblity for changes to have arrisen. Thus, CCHR does not accuse all psychiatrists of being criminals.

When was the statement quoted found on CCHR's web site? Today, April 10, 2005. If they're no longer standing by it, they should no longer be publishing it.

PLEASE DONT ADD COMMENTS BASED OFF OF "OUTSIDE" INFORMATION UNSUPPORTED BY CREDIBLE SOURCES

This page is meant to inform, not to suggest to people who is right and who is wrong

with terms such as "accused" and "supposed" without citing [credible] sources. Thank you.

The sources are credible, except to Scientologists, who are required to believe that all critics of Scientology must be criminals, who must therefore not be credible sources. Remember that these are documents which were uncovered during the FBI investigation into Operation Snow White. Was it critics on the Web who determined that key leaders in Scientology, right up to MSH herself, had committed the largest incident of domestic espionage in the history of the US? No, it was the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Don't make us laugh by saying it's Scientology's critics who have the credibility problem. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who to Trust

Sorry, but I don't think that trusting someone who orignally posted "Scientology" with a dollar sign in place of the S is a credible source. (I have since changed it.)

First of all, I'm reverting that, because it is unethical for you to change another person's words and make it appear that they said something other than what they said. Second, if you think that I was that editor or that it was that editor I was counting on as a credible source, you are incorrect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You never justified removing my revisions. Where is the reference that says that the Churhc refers to CcHR as one of those PR groups? Even if they have those PR groups, you're making an assumption that CCHR is one of them. Also, I see no reason for you to remove the possibility that things have changed. After all, it's been 19 years since the death of L. Ron Hubbard (which means it's been even longer since the quote was made), so wouldn't it be reasonable to just consider that things might be different?

Also, I don't think it matters WHO put the "$" in place of the S. It still stands that it's clearly a baised opinion. I'm not claiming Scientology to be everything they say they are, I'm just trying to find the ground in the middle. Please join me in the middle.

I think you need to look at WP:NPOV more carefully, not to mention the text of the article. One doesn't need to make the assumption that the CCHR is a front group of the Church of Scientology to include the true information that a great many people accuse it of being one, and the true information that Scientology has indeed employed front organizations which adds credibility to that theory.

As for adding the possibility "that things have changed", if you can cite an actual reason to believe that they have changed, then that can go in the article. Heck, if you can actually define who these people are that believe the CCHR has changed its ideas about psychiatrists despite still quoting Hubbard's ideas about psychiatrists on their website, then the attributed opinion can go in the article. But the mere speculation that maybe they've backed off their stance of every single psychiatrist being a murderer (despite still publishing it) doesn't belong in the article -- speculation is all it is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before reverting again, could the anon editor please respond to User:Antaeus Feldspar's points? They seem reasonable. Thanks, -Willmcw

The assertion "Mental illness is still being researched, although it has no proof of actually existing. (http://www.oikos.org/radchang.htm)" is so contrary to generally held views that it needs stronger support than a rant from an unaffiliated MD. Anyway, Dr. Baughman seems to be attacking ADD and ADHD, not all mental illness. Further, it is unclear why it belongs in this article. -Willmcw 23:48, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is certainly a great deal of question about whether the one website which may be making the claim that there is no proof of mental illness (or may just be making it about ADD/ADHD) is a credible source -- an issue which I know greatly concerns many of the editors who work on this article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The claim that "there is no proof mental illness exists" is flat nonsense. I see reverting such a claim to be similar to any other reversion of nonsense being inserted into an article. --Carnildo 00:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then please disprove it. Please provide a link of biological proof in support of mental disorders instead of removing my links which prove otherwise, or even just making it seem as though they are not important. The relation is clear: CCHR is against the creation of mental illnesses which are not scientifically supported, and thus the question as to whether they even exist comes into play. Before discrediting my own links, please provide solid proof of your own. That's all I ask.

If you were asserting that gravity does not exist would you make us prove that it does? Follow this link, ADD, and see the evidence there. More generally, it is not the point of Wikipedia articles to prove one thing or another. We, as editors, are just here to write verifiable, NPOV articles. What is relevant here is what CCHR claims, not whether those claims are factually true. So it is NPOV and correct to write "CCHR claims that there is no biological basis," while we would be adopting a POV if we write, "There is no biological basis." Anyway, thanks for discussing this point. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Posting a few links, two by the same write, does not merit saying that "many people" agree that there is no such thing as mental illness. Especially since that is not even what the links say. More importantly, it does not matter whether the CCHR's assertions are true or false. Our purpose in writing this article, as with any article, is to summarize with a neautral point of view the verifiable information about the article's subject. The subject is the CCHR, not mental illness. -Willmcw 05:57, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I came here from the RFC to give my two cents on the question, "Is the fact that one website claims there is "no proof of [mental illness] actually existing" all that is needed to state this as factual?" I agree with what Willmcw just said, that this article is not about whether mental illness actually exists, but about CCHR and the claims by CCHR. It would be appropriate, however, in light of CCHR claims that there is no "proof" of mental illness to present the CCHR response (if it exists) to Human Genome Project discoveries pointing to genetic linkage of mental disorders [1]. Also, what belongs in the article are any responses by groups who refute CCHR (perhaps this one for example, or others if they are out there). --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:41, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The anon has indicated that he would be satisfied if we remove the last clause in the disputed sentence:

The practice of psychiatry is considered by Scientologists to be a form of extortion because they believe it has no biological evidence to support it.

Would this satisfy other editors? Some settlement would be nice. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:23, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Carnildo 05:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To be fair to the reader, the reasons Scientologists find it to be a form of extortion should be given and properly cited, not just left hanging there. Meanwhile, the anon has violated 3rr, and it appears has been warned repeatedly for it, so I've listed it at AN:3RR [2] --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need to concern outselves with what one solitary anonymous editor who wants to put in highly biased POV content thinks. The article doesn't make sense if we don't explain why they call it extortion, because the word doesn't make sense just standing on its own. Changing neutral wording and chopping out factual content to suit someone who has already made it clear that he does care about following Wikipedia policy makes no sense. DreamGuy 06:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if readers are being deprived of necessary information. In fact, we've never even had a cite for that particular claim (which is grounds enough for deleting it). In any case, if you guys want to stick with it, fine. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)