Talk:Youth for Human Rights International/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge

I don't get this. There is

• Youth for Human Rights International

and

• Youth for human rights

IMO, one of them should be deleted and replaced with a redirection, preferable the shorter one, since the longer one is the actual name of this organisation. --Tilman 15:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Originally it was a redirection and perhaps Like.liberation didn't understand that and copied this article to the other one. It can be left as a redirection with no change to this one. AndroidCat 21:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy deletion

Justanother, I didn't fully understand the reasons you gave for deleting all but one sentence of the Controversy section. I have rewritten it, and added sources, most of which are from mainstream media, which I do not think can be faulted. I don't think neutral POV can justify the silencing of sound and well-sourced criticism. Like.liberation 09:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, the Washington Post article includes the Hubbard quote cited in the paragraph you removed. I'm restoring it. That quote, in turn, provides insight into the conflict between Scientology and psychiatry, and the role of Scientology-backed human rights groups in that fight.

And Steve Hassan provides a lengthy illustration of how movements use front groups to recruit. Nothing could be more topical, and it sheds light on YHRI. Like.liberation 16:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the section as NPOV. Your version was highly POV and seemed to be quite a WP:OR excursion from the only real and sourced controversy, which is the one I wrote about. I notice also that you included nothing to moderate your POV screed; not the MP's comments, not the response from the group. Well-sourced criticism is criticism that names specifically the subject of the article as what is being criticised; otherwise it is your OR to include it here and that does not go. Thanks. --Justanother 16:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Every fact in my revision was well-sourced, and NPOV. You call mine a screed, I call yours a gloss that doesn't contribute at all to understanding how YHRI operates or what its purposes are, although the legitimacy and intentions of YHRI can be inferred from other Scientology actions and groups. I gave context and you erased it. There was no OR in my revision, no opinion not supported by the facts, which you have largely deleted. And that does not go. Thanks. Like.liberation 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your "inferences" of what "how YHRI operates or what its purposes are" belong on your blog unless you can specifically source them in RS. --Justanother 16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Like.liberation, I'd have to go with Justanother on some of the paragraphs. Moonies, CCHR, general speculations about YHRI's purpose and European status aren't really part of this article—unless you can source it with a specific tie to YHRI. Heck, I'm a critic and I'd be shocked if an organization at 1332 L Ron Hubbard Way wasn't on-lines in someway more concrete than just funding and materials, but I don't use the article as a soapbox or put what I believe in without backing references. AndroidCat 17:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, AC. Thanks for the backup. Just so you know, that address is likely "Mary's Schoolhouse", a privately-run school that uses Study Tech. Just a school. Mary started the group out of the school. Why? IDK, maybe it started as a school project. There are lots of different things on LRH Way, the block of what used to called N. Berendo St., including a number of private residences. Point being that the address does not mean "front group", but likely owned or started by a Scientologist. --Justanother 18:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.shuttleworthacademy.org/schoolhouse/index.shtml The pic shows the number as 1334; 1332 is probably just in the back. Or we have it wrong here. --Justanother 18:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember that thanks later if I find a smoking cite that ties them. :) It appears to be the same building (just north-east of Google Maps' pin), but with street different numbers. (Like how RTC's 1710 Ivar Ave and CSI, WISE, etc's 6331 Hollywood Blvd are the Guaranty Building.) [1]

There is a building behind the school on the same property - probably the address is an office there. The Google street numbers do not exactly match up. You can see the facade on Mary's school in Google because of the slight off-perpendicular of the photo. Don't know what you hope to link? --Justanother 20:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You and I had a very different POV about NPOV, Justanother. The parliament member you quoted said he had no idea YHRI was connected to Scientology, and yet you only quoted him saying that he didn't see them pushing anything. If we're going to quote someone, let's quote the 17-year-old girl who said she felt exploited by being tricked into attending the event.

There is a two-pronged controversy here: a) the nature of YHRI and its relation to Scientology; b) the involvement of Scientology in the field of human rights.

YHRI is documented as concealing its ties to Scientology in several locations over several years, causing uproar enough to merit press coverage. The LA Times and UPI carried a similar story in 2005: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9663283_ITM. This pattern of events in itself suggests a front group, and the YHRI page should therefore link to the front group entry. Moreover, Scientology has a history of the establishing front groups that advance its interests under the flag of religious tolerance, as the 1977 FBI raid showed.

YHRI once included this page -- http://www.youthforhumanrights.org/about-us/about-us.htm -- on its website, but now it is no longer linked to. The word Scientology has been removed from Mary Shuttleworth's biography. I consider that as additional evidence of the failure of YHRI to disclose its ties to the parent organization.

Secondly, we should address the question of what YHRI works for. Hubbard's picture and quotes figure prominently in the human rights material distributed by youth for human rights. Why? Among real human rights organizations, he is not recognized as a thinker in the field, if his name is known at all. If his image and words take precedence over Gandhi and Martin Luther King in YHRI brochures, it serves to introduce students to Hubbard rather than educate them about human rights. So, YHRI disseminates Hubbard's teaching to high school students. It is no stretch of the imagination to call that the first step in recruitment. No original research there. We should make it clear in the beginning of this article that YHRI teaches L. Ron Hubbard's thought alongside the Universal declaration of human rights.

Like all things, YHRI needs to be understood in context. The purpose of this entry is to help people understand the group, not take a page out of their press release or play down in the name of NPOV its nondisclosure of the group that founded, runs and finances it. We need to point out the connections and similarities between YHRI and other Scientology-backed human rights organizations, like CCHR, where Tim Bowles serves as well. You erased that paragraph.

What uses does Scientology make of a human rights discourse? It pushes for religious freedom. Where? In the European Union. YHRI has national chapters operating in a number of EU member states. Several of those member states do not consider Scientology a proper religion. In 1997, Germany ruled that Scientology was a form of political extremism that threatened German democracy. France regards it as a sect and monitors it closely. Under these circumstances, Julie Barreau, a reporter for Le Soir magazine in Belgium, attended a Scientology meeting where the speaker pronounced the following words: "Nous devons prendre le contrôle de la Belgique. Leurs intentions sont les mêmes que celles des nazis ! Il faut éduquer les forces du quatrième Reich aux droits de l’homme." That is: "We must take control of Belgium. Their intentions are the same as the Nazis. We have to educate the forces of the fourth Reich about human rights." That was just a year ago. Ursula Caberta, the commissioner for the Scientology Workgroup of the Hamburg interior ministry, said in Die Welt in January of this year that YHRI was part of Scientology's cover-up tactics (Verschleierungstaktik).

A parliamentary human rights commission recently reported to the French government on the detrimental effects of sects on children's mental and physical health, and cited instances of abuse by Scientology. All this is helpful to understand YHRI. Indeed, to many, that Scientology advocates human rights is the deepest irony.

I believe I have demonstrated that YHRI exhibits behaviors of a front group, that those behaviors have been amply documented and analyzed by reliable sources, and that the group should be understood in the wider context of its parent organization's relation to human rights. I plan to restore those points in the entry.Like.liberation 05:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You do not get to "demonstrate" your infallible logic here, please - that is WP:OR. And my infallible logic says something else but I don't get to talk about that either. The only notable controversy is the one that is sourced and is as I described it. You want to add one girl's quote to balance the MP? Sure, why not? Otherwise, please stop inserting POV OR over the objections of two other editors, one a critic of Scientology. If you have any doubt then ask for a 3rd opinion. --Justanother 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, the David Clark quote was utterly incidental to the Sydney Herald article. It doesn't deserve to be included here and was not the main point of the piece. So I cut it. Androidcat specifically mentioned the Steve Hassan and CCHR paragraphs, which I have also cut. Many other points you have not adequately addressed nor have you made substantive arguments justifying their deletion en masse. Ursula Caberta specifically refers to YHRI as a cover-up tactic in a German newspaper. That deserves to be known. So does Scientology's view of Caberta -- that's why I included both. NPOV.

The Scientology human rights department has a webpage detailing its overall human rights strategy. It mentions both YHRI and levels of religious tolerance in Europe. The one that is clearly linked to the other, therefore we need to know what is behind Europe's so-called religious intolerance.

You seem to think this entry does not concern the larger issues to which YHRI is central. Yet those issues are essential to understanding YHRI. It's called context, the backstory. To delete its is to decrease the informational value of this entry and force readers to dig through separate articles. Like.liberation 09:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"The Scientology human rights department has a webpage detailing its overall human rights strategy. It mentions both YHRI and levels of religious tolerance in Europe.". WOW, that makes YHRI clearly a COVERED ORGANIZATION which "hides its ties to Scientology", right? Misou 04:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Misou, the point is that YHRI conceals its relationship to Scientology. Scientology trumpets the work of YHRI as though the group were not a sock puppet for its parent organization. The ties are most clear when one already knows that Scientology directs YHRI, but most people are ignorant of those ties, and both Scientology and YHRI attempt to profit from that ignorance, which is the very definition of a front group. Like.liberation 07:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to get the point. If the Church of Scientology organization is promoting YHRI publicly there is nothing HIDDEN about it. And hiding a relation is what "front group" means. People's ignorance cannot be a "reason" for such a label especially if no effort is being done to hide a relation. Or are you calling a "catholic kindergarten" or a English study group organized by the local Jewish community a "front group" as well? Apart from that you will have to come up with some resource that shows that YHRI is recruiting FOR SCIENTOLOGY MEMBERSHIP. Only then YHRI would also DO something on behalf of the Church of Scientology (which is the second half of being a front group). I believe all YOU want to achieve is to put the negative label "front group" on YHRI or Scientology, no matter if verifiable, true or not. Misou 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith is a slippery slope, Misou, but that is what you are doing when you speculate on what I want to achieve. The incidents stand as they have been reported: YHRI has repeatedly concealed its ties to Scientology, then suffered when those ties were revealed. Government officials have gone on record saying that they believe YHRI is a front group and an attempt to attract the young to Scientology by appealing to their idealism. That is what the controversy section states, no more no less. I don't have to show that they are recruiting, but simply that certain credible sources think so. Like.liberation 07:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Copied from above What uses does Scientology make of a human rights discourse? It pushes for religious freedom. Where? In the European Union. YHRI has national chapters operating in a number of EU member states. Several of those member states do not consider Scientology a proper religion. In 1997, Germany ruled that Scientology was a form of political extremism that threatened German democracy. France regards it as a sect and monitors it closely. Under these circumstances, Julie Barreau, a reporter for Le Soir magazine in Belgium, attended a Scientology meeting where the speaker pronounced the following words: "Nous devons prendre le contrôle de la Belgique. Leurs intentions sont les mêmes que celles des nazis ! Il faut éduquer les forces du quatrième Reich aux droits de l’homme." That is: "We must take control of Belgium. Their intentions are the same as the Nazis. We have to educate the forces of the fourth Reich about human rights." That was just a year ago. Ursula Caberta, the commissioner for the Scientology Workgroup of the Hamburg interior ministry, said in Die Welt in January of this year that YHRI was part of Scientology's cover-up tactics (Verschleierungstaktik).

I saw that judgment in Strasbourg some weeks ago. That one will help a lot of less recognized religions (I assume you don't want that, but I got this old fashioned pluralist viewpoint) and kick some russian totalitarians in the balls. If that is the "push for religious freedom" in Europe supported by YHRI, well, they got my vote. Yes, it helps the Church of Scientology organization as well. So what. By the way, as I am familiar with "Germany in 1997" (been there), I might correct you: the media and the Government parroted some paid study on Scientology that time. There was no "Germany ruled" (which is the Government taking over jurisdiction). Such things supposedly do not happen there anymore since 1945. Then the Belgium quote says what, that human rights education is necessary. Well, I guess the EU Administration, ECHR and some million Europeans agree to that. Americans for sure. What's you problem with that? Misou 21:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is about what should go into the entry. You and I will probably not agree on whether Scientology is a religion, but the outcome of that debate is irrelevant to the article on YRHI. Germany has an opinion about Scientology that is much more than the imitation of a paid study. If you are interested in understanding them, go here: http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html

I find the comparison of present-day Germany to Nazi Germany facile. More than any other country in Europe, they have dealt with that past. Germans are, in general, much more liberal than Americans. They simply have less tolerance for what they regard as pseudo-religious scams.

Not so long ago, Scientology maintained that the doctrine of Fair Game (Scientology) was necessary for it to exercise freedom of religious expression. Now the same organization pretends to promote human rights. I think the operative question here is: rights for who? Like.liberation 07:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Germans should update their online article. There has been considerable changes in the litigation scene since 1997. But this article deals with a group called Youth for Human Rights which is campaigning Human Rights issues. I don't understand why you would insist of having a German city employee quoted as "authority" in this article, especially in light of the fact that she got muzzled over and over for heavy propaganda statements, i.e. violating government neutrality. Caberta seems to belong to the Scientology controversy article. Or you could argue that if articles quoting German city employees are WP:RS then statements of city officials from other countries should go in there as well. YHRI has been praised by quite a number of them and none of that is mentioned. CSI LA 19:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair Game, this is almost 30 years old news (1968). Why are you claiming this to be "not so long ago"? CSI LA 19:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you honestly attempting to claim - despite knowing that the scientology critics editing here aren't "newbies" - that fair game was "cancelled" in 1968? Are you aware of the actual text of this "cancel"? And the many court decisions declaring that fair game is alive and practiced? (e.g. against Wollersheim)? And scientology going to court claiming that "fair game" is supported by the 1st amendment? --Tilman 17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know the text of the cancellation and just recently read it. There is no Scientology policy or issue supporting illegal activities against anyone, even if that someone is a screaming know-best thinning your nerves every second. Scientologists can learn to help everybody. COFS 04:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Caberta is indeed an authority. If you claim she has been "muzzled", please provide evidence. --Tilman 17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Authority for what? "Muzzled" might come from this court decision here (Hamburg Admin Court 2003) - also here and here (Admin Court Hamburg 1998). I got someone now to help me on the German stuff as you keep bringing up this Caberta here so feel free to argue (but not in German, this just means I can get German translations now). COFS 04:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Interpretations of NPOV

Misou's edit summary for this edit is "POV vio. Antaeus, you are still one-sided. Taking one side off means to take the other side off as well or leave both in." A clarification is in order. NPOV means that all significant POVs on the subject should receive fair airings. It does not mean that as soon as a person's expressed POV on a subject is included in a Wikipedia article, it is suddenly just and fair to insert name-calling and slander against that person into the article. Calling Ursula Caberta a "Nazi" and a "fascist demagogue" is mere character assassination. It cannot be considered the "other side" of the issue of YHRI's relationship to the Church of Scientology because it has nothing to do with the issue. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Both sides, also the Nazi thing against Caberta, are covered by WP:RS (more or less, meaning: newspapers). Your "name-calling" etc is your personal viewpoint. Think journalist, report what's there. Caberta says something about the Scientology group and Scientologists loudly state how they feel about Caberta's doings. Propaganda meets propaganda, not very exciting. I think none of the two should be in this article. Scratch it, there is less blown up information around. And finally: Caberta talks about the German "Jugend Fur Menschenrechte" group, doesn't she, and the article is about the US one. Misou 04:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no good reason why the sourced opinion of a government official whose role it is to monitor the Church of Scientology about the relationship between Youth for Human Rights and the CoS should be removed. There are several good reasons to remove the comments about what Scientologists think of Caberta:

• Despite appearing in a reliable source, the comments are not from a reliable source. "On Sunday, when Caberta arrived at Tampa International Airport, about a dozen Scientologists greeted her with shouts of "Nazi, go home!" and other insults." An opinion does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia merely because someone shouted it in an airport.
• The comments are not about the subject of the article. If you merely presented someone with the statement "Scientologists have called Caberta a Nazi and a fascist demagogue spearheading a hate campaign" no one, not even a Scientologist, would be able to guess which issue these comments were supposedly relevant to. Again, NPOV means that all significant POVs on the issue should receive a fair representation, not that holders of various POVs may be personally attacked if their assertions of those POVs are included in the article.
• The comments have no substance. "Nazi", "fascist demagogue" -- these are not claims of anything, they are only expressions of what Scientologists feel. They tell us nothing except that Scientologists hate Caberta and that they never heard of Godwin's Law. What relevance is there to the subject of the article?

I believe the statements were added to the article in good faith, under the impression that they would "balance" the article. But they do not. Statements from Scientology about the issue would be balancing; mere insults hurled at those who hold POVs unflattering to Scientology are not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Misou, in response to your point that "Caberta talks about the German 'Jugend Fur Menschenrechte' group, doesn't she, and the article is about the US one" -- I disagree. The article is about Youth for Human Rights International; that is, the umbrella organization that directs and is constituted by its many national chapters, of which Jugend Fur Menschenrechte is one. If YHRI is international, it is not limited to the US.

Antaeus, the Nazi quote was made in good faith. Based on your arguments, I withdraw it. Like.liberation 08:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda

Misou,

In response to your three edit summaries:

Propaganda shit removed. disrelated material goes. Bye2.

Totally disrelated material goes. Bye.

next WP:OR vio and assumption collection removed.

I have argued those points already in the discussion with Justanother. You are simply calling it propaganda, disrelated material and OR, then deleting by fiat. But every point made is backed up either by Scientology websites or news reports, and YHRI is often directly mentioned. Where it is not, the context remains important. In any case, I would ask you to remain civil.Like.liberation 09:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

1988 suicide , fraud convictions

Is there any information available on this material in English? Smee 06:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

There is: http://www.iht.com/articles/1996/10/02/sect.t.php. The NYT ran a piece later in 1996 on the suicide and added the conviction. It is available for Times Select subscribers, under "French Scientologist Sentenced After Church Member's Suicide", By CRAIG R. WHITNEY, Published: November 23, 1996.

In addition, Rick Ross has an archive of news wire articles on Scientology in France, notably from Agence France-Presse, which dates from 1999 and follows a number of other trials there. http://www.rickross.com/groups/scientology.html#Scientology%20vs.%20France.Like.liberation 21:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. I will look into these reputable secondary sourced citations and see if there is some interesting material there for potential new articles... Smee 07:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Possible ideas for potential new article titles related to these secondary sourced citation material??? Smee 08:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

real problems with this article

This section seems WP:OR to me:"In an FBI raid in 1977, Scientology was discovered to have founded and employed another front group that advanced the organization's interests under the flag of religious tolerance." as it refers to a time when YHRI and its programs did not exist yet. It is also confusing for the one uninitiated in the full history of Scientology. Serious POV trouble comes from the "german slant" in this article. YHRI is mainly active in Africa and the USA. I understand that Caberta is a city official in a German city, Hamburg. Do we want to include statements of such minor quality? CSI LA 02:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand WP:OR. Referring to and paraphrasing secondary and even primary sources is part of building Wikipedia articles. So is the synthesis of information. No new opinions or theories are being proposed here. If you go to the source cited for the passage you quote, you will see it is a respected academic journal reporting well-established facts, which are summarized in this article. YHRI and Scientology are inseparable, so whether YHRI existed in 1977 or not, the practices of Scientology are relevant and they directly inform this controversy. Anyone confused by that can initiate themselves with further reading. YHRI is active all over the place; we are not concerned here with percentages. Caberta's comments get wide coverage in the German press. Given that Germany is a federation of states, or Laender, regional officials play a different and sometimes larger role in national politics.Like.liberation 09:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with CSI LA. The claim that an alleged finding of the FBI in 1977 has anything to do with an organization's doing in 2007 is wild enough and unsourced. But to assume that a theoretically existing pro-religious freedom group in 1977 is identical with a branch of an internationally active pro-human rights group thirty years later is too much for uninvolved readers. That's why Wikipedia policy requires attribution etc, incl. no original research, which includes to avoid "editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" WP:OR. COFS 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, for whatever that's worth. (Which is probably less than zero.) I also believe the sentence "YHRI's failure to disclose its Scientology connection led to trouble with sponsors" should simply read "YHRI's Scientology connection led to trouble with sponsors", because "failure to disclose" contains the misleading implication that there's something legally or morally wrong with not disclosing one's Scientology affiliations, as if it's like being a registered sex offender or something. wikipediatrix 01:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Failure to disclose" means only and exactly that, there is no misleading implication. If YHRI would openly disclose to its sponsors and collaborators its ties to Scientology, there would be no controversy. However, if it did that, it might not have any sponsors and collaborators. Those people have gone on record saying they were upset at the lapse. Newspapers have reported it and we have re-reported it here. Thus the controversy section. You don't need to agree that it's controversial. Enough people do already to justify the word. The length of this talk session alone should indicate that a controversy exists. Moreover, "affiliation" is the most watered-down word possible to describe the ties YHRI has with Scientology.Like.liberation 11:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. I cleaned up the worst of the OR-ish stuff including the imaginary "back story" Imaginary is its connection to YHRI. --Justanother 01:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"failure to disclose" - yes, one should disclose the affiliation with a controversial organisation. --Tilman 02:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Should" is an opinion. "Affiliation" is relative. "Controversial" is subjective. "Encyclopedias" need facts. wikipediatrix 02:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Failure to disclose was an issue in these two sources [2][3] AndroidCat 03:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But whether or not it SHOULD have been an issue is not for our text to take sides on. It's a very minor shading of nuance, I admit, but I see no harm in ever-so-slightly rewording it in the way I suggested. wikipediatrix 03:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean should, I meant that two sources say that failure to disclose was an issue. AndroidCat 03:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Artificially blown up controversies. YHRI has written "supported by the Church of Scientology" all over it. COFS 03:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

O RLY? not here not here not even here. Where is this "written" that you speak of? AndroidCat 03:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, What we do, Latest News, Scientology Press Office, Scientology Press Office again and about 50 more sources within 2 minutes. COFS 03:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, "Scientology Effective Solutions", YHRI news. I'll spare you the foreign country hits from Africa, Europe, Russia and so on. COFS 03:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

PPS, as a grown up group it is certainly also supported by Amnesty International etc, as you point out yourself here. COFS 03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bravo for finding one brief mention on the YHRI site. Why would people who didn't know about the connection look at CoS sites? AndroidCat 03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Try http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.youthforhumanrights.org+Scientology in Google. 117 "brief mentions". COFS 03:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you know, www.youthforhumanrights.org/html_files/scientology.html is blank, except for an invitation to watch the ads. The point, COFS, is that it's easy to see that Scientology and YHRI are affiliated -- if you already know. Most people don't. And judging from news reports, YHRI isn't telling everybody. That's why they get upset when they show up at a "human rights conference" and see L. Ron Hubbard's face plastered all over the brochures.

It's funny, isn't it, that while most human rights abuses are going on under dictatorships in poverty-stricken third-world countries, YHRI is operating largely in rich, developed countries, inviting high schoolers to read Hubbard quotes. I can almost feel my human rights gauge ticking up.Like.liberation 11:06, 28 April 2007

Thank you for not holding back with your agenda, Like.liberation. With your apparent familiarity on the subject you should know very well that this is a blunt lie. Stop putting NPOV violating material in this article. You are mixing up organizations and people and messages thus making your contribution pure propaganda and that has no place here. COFS 23:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

COFS, You are advised to stop your uncivil remarks to other editors. You are violating wikipedia policy. Please stop accusing other editors of exactly what you are doing.--Fahrenheit451 20:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, witch hunting activities are as uncivil and very unproductive. Just stop. CSI LA 21:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No witch hunting, sockpuppet of COFS, you are talking about your own uncivil and very unproductive actions. YOU have been stopped by blocking.--Fahrenheit451 23:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I just added 23 sources about YHRI activies. This still needs to be wikified a bit or at least summarized. Newspaper databases spat out about 50 more but they are not in english (french, spanish, german, italian and some other). Unfortunately I can't read them, so you got to be patient for a day or two. COFS 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your list of countries in which YHRI operates only proves my point, CFOS. Most are developed, first-world nations: Japan, the US, all those EU countries, South Africa. You're accusing me of lying for my agenda, and then you're putting the lie to yourself, showing how YHRI is diffusing Scientology material to the children of wealthy nations.

For the umpteenth time, well-documented backstory is not a violation of NPOV. Nor is quoting critics of Scientology, who, I must say, are less likely to be partisan than someone with the pseudonym "COFS." Certain points of view have been repeatedly censored by you and others in the controversy section -- where's freedom of expression when you need it?

It has already been amply demonstrated that YHRI and Scientology are so closely bound as to be inseparable. Therefore Scientology's behavior has a bearing on YHRI, and its history informs how YHRI must be understood. You would like to abstract YHRI from its historical context, and erase the bad things that other people say that YHRI and Scientology have done. We have a credible record of those acts and their critics. Erasing that record here is not neutral, but partisan, and you, therefore, are violating NPOV by not letting other sides be heard. Neutral point of view does not mean "one point of view" -- many can be aired.

At the end of the day, when you do bad things, people say bad things about you, and that will haunt Scientology and YHRI as long as they continue to conceal relevant information about themselves. Like.liberation 13:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I started this thread many interesting comments have been made, showing very clearly what type of information you want to see in this article and what type of information COFS wants to put in. Unlike hers, your information is not about YHRI at all but can be summarized as "throwing dirt" or - more diplomatically worded - using attacks against the Church of Scientology to draw the attention off the actual activity of Youth for Human Rights International. I believe they could be training hundreds of thousands in their Human Rights (as they do every day all over the world) and you would not find this notable but trying to find some "weak spot" and dig up more information not related to YHRI's work. The insistence to put in 30 year old unrelated data and some words of a far away city employee are marking you as POV pushing. That is sad as we will not ever have an encyclopedic article on YHRI unless you decide to follow Wikipedia policy. So I invite you to re-study the following policy :WP:BIAS, WP:OR, WP:OWN, WP:ATTRIB and especially WP:NPOV. CSI LA 21:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you, CSI LA, re-study the following policy: WP:SOCK.--Fahrenheit451 22:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

YHRI in Germany

YHRI is very active in Germany. [4] And the spokesperson is of course the scientology spokesperson. --Tilman 17:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Germany needs it. And what a "cover organization" is that where the press speaker of the Church of Scientology is also promoting Youth for Human Rights. If babelfish did not let me down I would say they even promote it as an action of the Church of Scientology Germany in their Freedom Magazine. COFS 18:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, COFS, Germany does NOT "need it". The cofs needs to straighten ITself out on the subject of human rights which is violates frequently by the practice of enforced disconnection, SP declares, and the practice of Fair Game. YHRI is a fraud and a propaganda organization.--Fahrenheit451 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You went a long way to get an answer from me, but honestly I can see no communication but only a bunch of nonsense, so I do not really know what you expect me to answer. COFS 04:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

COFS, Your response is very uncivil. I advise you to comply with wikipedia policy and treat other editors with civility.--Fahrenheit451 20:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Tilman, what activities does YHRI do in Germany? I got kind of lost in translation with your link. COFS 18:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The same. "Human rights is important", etc. while at the same time scientology has literature explaining that 20% should better be isolated like people with smallpox, and that 2.5% should be disposed altogether, and that only upstats have rights. --Tilman 02:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Human Rights are important and need to be supported. In the US the campaign "know your rights" runs on TV, Radio, movie theaters and in newspapers, with dozens of info booths every week allover the country (I've seen the news reports about it). They distribute or show the UN Declaration on Human Rights where ever possible, for free, including inside the UN building in NYC. I have not heard of anybody becoming a Scientologist because of that. did you ever see the clips depicting all Human Rights of the UN Declaration?

"Scientology literature", I heard that before, always in relation to a misinterpretation of "Science of Survival" and the "Ethics book", the books whose only purpose is to train people on how to get all 100% out of the mud, including you, Tilman (if you want to). I happen to have read both books and it would not cross my mind to refuse to help people getting better. The policy on "upstats" says if you support actions to the detriment of your activity you'll get more of that and if you support actions helping your activity you'll get more of that. Common sense, I would say. COFS 03:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not "in the mud". And unlike scientology, I believe that human rights apply to everyone, including the "downstats", the "20 percenters" and the "2 1/2 percenters". --Tilman 08:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very happy to hear that you are not in the mud. Unfortunately you are still fully noncomprehending in what "downstat" and "percenters" are (the latter being a made-up term by yourself) and misinterpreting the text book on it so that it sounds as something contrary to human rights. The opposite is true in real life and evidenced by real life activities. You should go and look. Let me know if you need help. COFS 23:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

COFS, there is no evidence that Tilman is, as you state, "still fully noncomprehending in what "downstat" and "percenters" are" and the terms did not originate with Tilman, but rather with L. Ron Hubbard. There is no evidence he has misinterpreted anything under discussion. It looks to me that you are attempting to invalidate what he knows. I think Tilman is quite capable of helping himself.--Fahrenheit451 20:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

COFS changes

Before reverting, I am waiting for some other opinions. The additions look like an advertising. Much of the sources are scientology itself. The very important excerpt by "Le Soir" was deleted [5]. This is very important, since it shows why scientology created this oorganization. --Tilman 09:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you really talking about deleting about 20 quotes from official newspapers because you disagree with the article text? What are you going to do about the fact that more about 50% of this article is taken by single statement issues not providing any information about the article's subject?

I find it remarkable what YHRI is doing and how much effort is being taken to educate every one in his and her Human Rights, be it in China or Ghana, the United States or Russia. And I am not surprised that there is so much media about it. Parts of the articles should actually be pulled up in the WP article text in form of a summary or highlight. CSI LA 21:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sometimes quick on the revert trigger, but I am waiting for other opinions before I revert the current advertising.

Newspaper articles are only useful if based on research, instead of repeating PR without checking it. After all, Scientology isn't exactly known for respecting the human rights of its members, as many court cases have shown, e.g. the Wollersheim, Vic, Armstrong, and many others. Why weren't the human rights of these people respected by scientology? --Tilman 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on the letters to the editor and other (news paper)? and cultnews.com articles that are routinely cited, its nice to hear someone say that newspaper articles need research behind them. Lsi john 00:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I just see that COFS and CSI LA have been blocked: [6][7] --Tilman 21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that COFS's and his sockpuppet, CSI LA's arguments are irrelevant and you should commence editing.--Fahrenheit451 23:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If COFS made valid edits then they are valid edits. --Justanother 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, I did not state COFS did not make valid edits. Who is telling you that I did?--Fahrenheit451 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Why not just read this this section? Unless you are "auditing" me? --Justanother 02:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, I think you need to reread the section and look up any misunderstood words. How am I "auditing" you?--Fahrenheit451 15:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

By "auditing" I mean your lame attempts at "Black Scientology"; whether it be your misapplication of "3rd-party tech" with "Who is telling you that I did?" or your misapplication of "study tech" with " I think you need to reread the section and look up any misunderstood words". That looks as foolish as yelling "What are your crimes!" in peoples' faces. And is about as valid an "auditing" technique. --Justanother 18:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, you are to stop making personal attacks and be civil. I am not doing any of those things that you allege.--Fahrenheit451 21:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say that the edits weren't valid. He said the arguements were irrelevant. I'd like to think that if any one of us were to get hit by a truck, that our previous position and argments would still be considered valid. Each of us represents a segment of the population and gives a voice to it. Our absence does not invalidate our arguements. Lsi john 02:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That depends, Lsi john. Our absence does not invalidate our arguments, but if the reason for our absence is that we have been caught in an act (such as sockpuppeteering) that displays extremely bad faith, it does weaken our arguments to the degree that our arguments depended on our good faith. I would find it hard enough to think that COFS really believed in good faith that adding over 30K of raw textdump copied from various newspaper articles was actually going to bring the article closer to Wikipedia's desired standards. But the fact that he's now been revealed to be a sockpuppeteer makes it rather clear that he doesn't care about Wikipedia's standards; he merely wants to use and abuse Wikipedia's resources to push his point of view. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Though I think I understand what you mean, I disagree with your wording. If I say that fire is hot, and provide a sound argument for why it is hot, and then I am caught burning down someone's house, that does not weaken my argument that fire is hot. It may weaken my credibility (which I believe is what you are really saying), but an argument stands on its own merits. The only difference is how much justification you require, from a trusted source versus an untrusted one. I'm being technical, so please don't take exception. I am technical by nature, and sometimes words get misquoted or misused and that technical distinction can make a huge difference in interpretation. Lsi john 17:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel we need to make a distinction here. We've been using the word "argument" interchangeably with "assertion"; let's start using each correctly. COFS did not provide an argument as to why we needed, for example, the following text:

"Although shy by nature, Heather Powers, a sixth-grader at Hoech Middle School in the Ritenour School District, is outspoken when it comes to increasing awareness about human rights. After watching a news show about six months ago on human trafficking of women and children in Russia and Turkey, Heather was enraged and wanted to take action. She became active in Youth for Human Rights and learned about the 30 rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was created under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt and adopted by the United Nations in 1948. Last month, Heather attended the Summit on Making Human Rights a Global Reality at the United Nations in New York. She was the only student from the St. Louis area who was selected to attend the session. Students learned more about human rights violations around the world and then took that information back to their schools to encourage peers to take action. Heather also believes that human rights should be part of her school's curriculum and signed a petition to send to Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt and President George W. Bush. Heather is the daughter of James Powers and Meshell Little. She lives in Overland with her mother and stepfather, Jim Little. Here is what Heather says: The best book I ever read was: "The book of human rights by Eleanor Roosevelt." I'm most proud of: "Me. I didn't think I'd be able to do something that would be the greatest good for the greatest number of people by bringing about awareness on human rights." The greatest challenge that I've overcome in my life was: "Talking in front of people and to people because I've always been shy.""

... all in order to support the claim "YHRI operates in the United States." COFS made no argument to that effect. Because each editor has a responsibility to act in the best interests of Wikipedia, COFS can be read as having made the assertion that it was in the best interests of Wikipedia to add that claim (about ten words, maximum) and about 300 words more, none of which are actually needed to support the claim for which those 300 words were supposedly added. But assertions, unlike arguments, are affected by who is doing the asserting. When COFS shows by sockpuppeting that he puts the promotion of his own agenda above the best interests of Wikipedia, there's no reason to put any credence in his assertion that it was in the best interests of Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So you are having fun here dancing on COFS grave? Alright, let me help you with that thing. COFS added a lot of valid RSes (which you are complaining about, am I getting this right?) but got kicked for whatever. The papers COFS posted have not been kicked. So what are you talking about? Why don't we get busy and make these refs into neat little wiki-refs. Misou 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Misou, please demonstrate how anybody here is as you state, "dancing on COFS grave"? I don't see anything like that here.--Fahrenheit451 17:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tap-tatap. Tatap-tatap-tatap. Can't you hear it? Misou 17:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No.--Fahrenheit451 19:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

reference excerpts

Meanwhile.... what's up with these enormously long article excerpts (some of which seem to almost be the entire article rather than a mere excerpt) that make the References section now three times the size of the actual Wikipedia article itself? wikipediatrix 03:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on a review, it appears COFS added them as sources, with the intention that someone go through them and summarize. It doesn't appear that he intended for them to stay as fully cited text, only as source material for someone else to summarize and reduce.

"some references for starters (translations pending for non-english). someone might want to summarize the articles, otherwise I'll do it later"

Lsi john 03:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and summarize these... --Bdbegonia 21:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Great plan! Misou 17:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any need to summarize them at all. None of them add any significant details on the claims they were submitted to support. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No. This is plenty of data really SHOWING what these guys of YHRI are doing. I prefer that to the conspiracy theories in the "controversy" section. Bdbegonia, you got my vote. Misou 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If the info in the summaries isn't relevant to the text in the article, then something's clearly skewed with the text. There's absolutely no reason all of this wealth of sourced information about what the YHRI are doing can't be included in the main article. The article's supposed to be about them, after all! wikipediatrix 17:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Lsi john 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for including them in the proper fashion, but as references/excerpts, they were only in the way. Those who bothered to read them would see that YHRI is primarily concerned with holding essay contests and handing out prizes to people who have no connection with them, as though they will be idealistic by association. That's how they fight for human rights. Does an award ceremony constitute being active in a country? I'm not so sure. Sometimes, to demonstrate their activities in different countries, they handed out the same prize twice (Bulgaria). Other excerpts, like one from The Jerusalem Post, were simply shilling for Scientology and did not mention human rights. Still others were simply announcing plans to do something (Africa). With few exceptions, the sources cited were small newspapers, and we can only wonder if they knew about the Scientology connection. I propose a review of the quality of the activities, and an editing of the country list.Like.liberation 08:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Um.... "a review of the quality of the activities" would be an opinion, a judgment, a subjective matter. In order words, blatantly violating WP:OR. It doesn't matter whether WE think an awards ceremony constitutes being active in a country or not, or whether they're actually accomplishing anything for human rights. We are not here to judge the quality of their activities. We're here to gather reliable sources and build a fair and balanced article out of them. wikipediatrix 03:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson in diligence. YHRI gave an award to a Chinese actress based in L.A., and COFS used the coverage she got in a Hong Kong paper to justify the inclusion of China in their list of countries where YHRI is active. Go figure. Or the Hindustan Times covered a youth gathering YHRI held in Zurich, and COFS claimed they were active in India. At the risk of going too granular, let's just say with precision what they do and where. Like.liberation 09:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And "fair and balanced" is very much a matter of opinion, but is not wikipedia policy as Wikipediatrix seems to think.--Fahrenheit451 03:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Fair" is Wikipedia policy. "Balanced", at least in the sense of "we have to find good things to say about them even if they don't meet the same standards as the bad things", is specifically cautioned against. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggesting we do that. I'm certainly not. But the bulk of this article is devoted to a huge section entitled "Controversy" which basically boils down to that they're connected to the Church of Scientology and don't make this clear enough to suit some people. That's not good enough. The undue weight to negative information here is colossal. In fact, much of the "controversy" in the article isn't even about YHRI, it's just about Scientology in general. That's also totally unfair to YHRI. If anyone has any dirt specifically about YHRI, let them come forward. But unlike other CoS-related entities like Narconon who are fucking up at every turn, YHRI hasn't actually done anything wrong (yet). When I say "fair and balanced", I am speaking of undue weight, which is indeed something Wikipedia policy forbids. [8] wikipediatrix 17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I went and checked the article, and I can't agree. If the material in the Controversy section was "just about Scientology in general", then it would indeed be out of place. But it is instead about the fact that Scientology is considered by numerous governments to itself be a violator of human rights; I cannot see how that could reasonably be thought irrelevant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

By your same rationale, ANY organization associated with the Catholic church could have any criticism of said Church heaped upon it, which would mean that perfectly innocent organizations, though connected to and maybe even directly controlled by the Vatican, could unfairly find unwarranted discussions of pedophilia on their article! wikipediatrix 19:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, by my rationale, any organization which was associated with the Roman Catholic Church that declared its specific goal to be countering pedophilia would certainly have it noted that the activities of the Roman Catholic Church in that regard have themselves been questionable. And I submit that that would be perfectly appropriate. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet YHRI is a human rights organization, and Scientology is not universally known for proven human rights violations. wikipediatrix 20:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"...But it is instead about the fact that Scientology is considered by numerous governments to itself be a violator of human rights..I cannot see how that could reasonably be thought irrelevant"--Antaeus Feldspar

It isn't irrelevant.. to an article on Scientology.. This article is about YHRI. Find a quote that says YHRI is a violator of human rights and you've got yourself a relevant and citable quote. Lsi john 21:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would even challenge Antaeus' claim that "Scientology is considered by numerous governments to itself be a violator of human rights" - that's a wild and dangerous exagerration, and even if it were true, it's still not sufficient basis to go around wiki-hounding every organization on Earth that is affiliated with Scientology in any way. wikipediatrix 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So as to stay on-point with YHRI, I was leaving that debate for another place. Debating whether or not birds have two or three wings doesn't belong here, and neither does a debate about government views on Scientology. Lsi john 21:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Challenge it all you want. We've cited sources in this very article that testify to Antaeus's statement, and make your challenge an unfortunate exercise in hysterics. Nobody is being hounded. No wild and dangerous exaggerations are being made. Scientology has certain pretensions to propagate human rights, and those efforts, in the form of YHRI, should be put in context. Affiliation is an understatement -- for all practical intents and purposes, YHRI is Scientology.Like.liberation 12:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Like.liberation, your recent large revert seems to have inadvertently deleted several grammar and readability (improvements?). This can be an unintended consequence of reverting to an older version of text and is an example of why an editor should edit instead of revert/paste. Unless you took exception to my edits, I would be most appreciative if you would re-insert them. Thank you. Lsi john 14:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits on Activities have been restored, Lsi john. Regarding your argument on assuming good faith, above, that policy applies to other editors, not to the subjects under discussion. I think you'll agree that there are many areas -- politics, for example -- where being forced to assume good faith on the part of the subject would turn us into pollyannas. wikipediatrix is assuming good faith for certain press releases and not others, whereas it would behoove all of us to do a bit more homework, as Tilman's clarification of the Caberta situation showed. Like.liberation 08:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

YHRI is Scientology - prove that please. --Justanother 12:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree that YHRI was founded, and is staffed and run by Scientologists, and is largely financed by Scientology. The two organizations are one in all but name. It doesn't seem like a great leap to say that if we take all mention of Scientology out of the YHRI article, we have no understanding of YHRI. The assertion that information concerning Scientology and human rights has no place in an article on YHRI is based on an overly narrow vision of what a Wikipedia entry should be. In an article about kangaroos, we would mention their similarities to other marsupials, as well as what we know of their evolutionary ancestors. Same principle here. Like.liberation 08:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments from previously-uninvolved editor- being BOLD

I'm not a Scientologist. I'm not anti-Scientologist. I have very little information about Scientology.

I have been bold and done my first-read of this article. I have removed sections which appeared to be irrelevant and re-worded in others to make it more about YHRI than Scientology.

Lsi john 22:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO:

"Ursula Caberta, the controversial Commissioner for the Scientology Workgroup of the Hamburg Interior Authority, has accused the YHRI of being a Scientology "front group" meant to attract and recruit the young. [17] However, Caberta has repeatedly come under fire for her bias and for suspicion of corruption after it was determined she had improperly received 75,000 dollars from anti-Scientology interests. These legal proceedings against Caberta were dropped upon her payment of a 7,500 euro fine. [30]"

Should also be removed. There appears to be enough substance to the controversy around this person to make their charges less than relevant. I did not feel that it added significant information to my reading of this article to warrant its inclusion. I left it in, because I felt that removing it would have been subjective enough to warrant discussion. Lsi john 22:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with all mention of Caberta being excised, but if she must be mentioned, then so must her bias against Scientology. wikipediatrix 01:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How sure you are of her bias, and how trusting of YHRI. Where's your fair and balanced now? Like.liberation 12:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about sources, not what I personally believe. I have no personal feelings about YHRI and really couldn't care less about them as an organization. Evidently you do, since it seems to irk you that I seem to "trust" them. wikipediatrix 15:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

wikipediatrix thats bordering awfully close to that nasty WP:AGF concept (about the organization), whereas Like.liberation's approach of tar and feather first seems much more practical. Lsi john 16:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not knowing anything about her, other than what is here in that paragraph, I don't see anything noteworty enough to keep in the article. I'm sure there is more, but I only see two things.. a) that she had an issue with YHRI and 2) that there was a conflict of interest. The 2nd is only relevant to refute the 1st, and the 1st is not significant based on the COI. My opinion: axe it. Lsi john 01:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you don't delete something just because you "don't know". What she said is relevant to the topic, and it is sourced. --Tilman 16:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tilman, my friend's (not Scientologist) nephew and aunt (scientologists) died of treatable diabetes (I believe it was diabetes, if not it was something equally treatable) and cancer. They were scientologists, and in my view, it was wrong that they didn't take the boy to a doctor and allow him to take the medicine to control the diabetes. Beyond that, my knowledge of Scientology is zero. I'm about as neutral as you'll find on the subject, in spite of my negative (but limited) experience with COS. Lsi john 17:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(inserted) Heh, too funny.. Just to show how little I know, I just found out that these two people were Christian Scientists, not Scientologists. Who knew there was a difference? :) I guess know less than I thought I knew. Lsi john 12:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that something be deleted because I don't know. I'm suggesting that insufficient information was provided in the version of the article that I read. Please read my opinion closely. Based on what I see in the article .... This means either there was no substance reported, or someone did a very poor job of reporting it and tying it to YHRI. When I read it, I saw finger pointing on both sides and it read like smoke and mirrors.

Remember, Mr Tilman, I know nothing of the subject nor of the person. It is your responsibility to write the article and present the information. It is unreasonable to expect me, a mere reader, to know what she said or didn't say and it is unreasonable to expect me to go to the library to find out. If it is relevant to the article, then include sufficient information so that I walk away with the facts, not speculation.

I also, personally, do not believe that unsubstanciated allegations have any business being reported in an article. And that is especially true when a significant question of COI was raised and the person paid a fine. As a reader, her credibility is shot and unless there are specific details which substantiate the charge, I felt (and feel) that it is not appropriate, or significant enough to be included.

Also, keep in mind, just because something is sourced and cited does not mean that it is significant and/or relevant.

Lsi john 17:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tilman, with all due respect, the neutrality of your edits would seem to be in question. Why would you only restore the allegations made by Caberta? Why didn't you go back and recover the remainder of that paragraph, where the COI charges were made and a resulting fine was paid? Surely both are equally significant. It would seem that a neutral editor would have made an effort to include both or neither, as wikipediatrix did. Lsi john 17:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

She never paid a "fine". The case was closed in exchange of a payment. This is §153a StPO. It simply means that both sides (defense and prosecution) wanted to avoid a trial. Technically, she is as pure as snow. The "source" that the payment was improper is scientology itself, not Gerry Armstrong. --Tilman 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Care to enlighten us on the difference between a "fine" and a payment made in order to satisfy the prosecution in a legal case against oneself? wikipediatrix 18:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A fine is when you're convicted ("Urteil" or "Strafbefehl"). A payment per §153a StPO [9] is a deal between the court, defense and prosecution to dismiss the case in exchange for the payment. It is not an admission of guilt. It is accepted both by guilty and non guilty people, who want to avoid a trial, or at least a decision. (§153a StPO can also be used when the trial has already begun) And note that she didn't lose her government job. (Of course, ordinary people think that one who pays "must be guilty", and media and even judges (!) sometimes use the word "fine" which is incorrect. Legally, §153a StPO has no admission of guilt)

About Caberta - the Minton loan story is years away. It has nothing to do with her YHRI criticism. --Tilman 19:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tilman,

1. Fine/Buyout: If the cited sources do not use the word fine then the appropriate word should be substituted. An improper quote, if one exists, is not cause for deleting an entire citation. On one hand you cry Don't remove cited sources and then you do exactly that.
2. Why did you completly remove the cited reference to the legal case? It seems relevant and significant to me, and appears to speak to her overall credibility. And, it was cited material. You insist on cited material being left in an article, remember?
3. Germany's opinion of scientology, though documented, does not appear to be relevant to this article. This article is about YHRI. My edit specifically asked you to establish that Germany has an issue with YHRI. Shall we also include Germany's opinion of Iraq and Christmas?
4. 2005 LA Trivia: In my edit, I asked for a reason that this is relevant. Your edit reply was restore sourced material. Sir, I did not say it was not sourced. I asked why/how it is relevant. It is trivial. Many schools require permission slips to attend most school functions. This item is about drama and sensationalism. It is not about YHRI. It does not address anything that YHRI did or even was accused of doing. If it is about anything, it is about the LA school district. You would be welcome to include it in an article on paranoid hysterical emotional reactions. But to include it here, please explain how it is relevant and what value it adds to this article on YHRI.
5. Other European countries: Please explain what this has to do directly with YHRI. There is no mention of YHRI in the citation. It appears to be about Scientology and that is where it belongs.

Mr Tilman, I try to assume good faith, however you have disregarded virtually every one of my edit comments and requests for justification for inclusion. Again, being sourced is not sufficient to warrent inclusion in an article, or we would have to include sources for the harvesting of peanuts.

Unless you can establish a direct and citable link, between these sourced tidbits and YHRI, then I submit that you are doing original research, by drawing your own conclusions that Germany has something against YHRI and then inserting it into this article.

Please thoroughly address each of the points above, or kindly restore the article to a NPOV condition.

Thank you. Lsi john 20:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain you, the Caberta Minton loan affair is not related to the YHRI controversy. Even the "source" (a scientology PR woman whose rant was webbed as an example of black PR!) does not mention YHRI, or human rights.

The other european countries - it is related to the topics of human rights, and how scientology disregards them. This has been settled here before already. Why restart this discussion just for you all over again?

The LA stuff is quite obviously relevant, since it does mention YHRI, and that the principal changed his opinion when he learned of the scientology connection, and insisted that the kid talk with their parents first. (Because obviously HE would be in trouble when parents found out that their children be at an event of a dubious organisation)

The main problem with your edits is that you admit youself that you're not informed on the topic, but insist on editing - instead of reading, researching, and informing oneself. You sortof want to "make a footprint" here: "Watch it, here I come". That is disruptive, and not helpful at all. Same for "requiring" me to answer your interrogation, "or else". You delete something, then insist that others explain to YOU why it is relevant. Especially the LA segment [10]. --Tilman 20:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Its obviously OR, for you to add dubious to his decision without it being cited. It could simply be that he felt he might be in trouble if the kids went to an event that had any religious undertones, without parental consent. You are entitled to your conclusions, but not to put them in the article. Lsi john 15:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Outdent:

1. Loan Affair: It relates to Camberta and speaks to overall credibility. Unless you are claiming that she was totally credible when she made the charges against YHRI and then suddenly later became dishonest?
2. Other European countries: Correct that is exactly what it does. And that is why it belongs in an article on Scientology. Why are you including it in an article on YHRI? In order to tie them together, you will need to demonstrate that COS directly controls YHRI, that it inserts human rights violation ideas into YHRI, that YHRI carries out those human rights violations....and to do that, you either need a source which says it directly, or you are doing Original Research, drawing your own conclusions, and inserting them into the article.
3. LA Stuff: Pardon me, but it is not quite obviously relevant to this article or I would not have objected to it being included. Is the principle an expert on Scientology? Was his decision based on some action by YHRI? Was a specific charge made against YHRI? Perhaps he was afraid that paranoid people like you, would make his life if he didn't make sure they knew that YHRI was attached to a religious organization? Was it specifically about Scientology? Would he have done the same thing for a Catholic or Luthern group? The inclusion of this material is drivel. You have failed to justify its inclusion to me.
4. Uninformed: Certainly, I am as uninformed as any reader who reads this article. It is your job to link it up for me in the article. It is not my job to go research it. I am not adding any content. I am not writing the article. I have removed content that I, as an outsider, believes is irrelevant or inappropriate. Coming back on your high-horse and saying its my fault for being ignorant, is not justification for including propaganda.

You still have not given me a single justification for including the material in an article on YHRI.

Dont blame the reader. (that would be me) Blame the editor. (that would be you). Lsi john 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're not willing to accept or understand the justifications, that is your problem, and you'll have to live with it. I doubt that anyone (except the scientologists) would support your most blatant disruption, which was [11] and the claim that this is unrelated to YHRI or irrelevant or whatever. --Tilman 20:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You still have not addressed my questions. Regarding LA, I claimed that it was inappropriate and irrelevant trivia, sensationalism and propaganda and contained no factual information directly about YHRI, I never suggested that it was unrelated. The fact that my neighbor's dog sleeps outside, is related to a dog article, but it is not relevant to the article and wouldn't belong in an article on dogs.

As you appear to be unwilling or unable to give a rational argument to justify your views, then we will agree to disagree.

Does anyone else agree with the edits I made? If so, then they should probably be re-instated. Lsi john 22:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The activities section is/was rather clunky. As a reader, I would be interested to know what the prizes are and a bit more of the details on the projects. I have corrected some grammar and shuffled a few things, but tried to maintain the integrity of the data/facts.

Potentially an interesting article. Lsi john 23:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I see, you removed quite a lot of well sourced facts. Please don't do this - it is disruptive. --Tilman 18:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Section Break

Well-source, sure. Relevant? Not so sure. I tend to agree with Lsi john's comments re. their relevance to an article on Scientology, but not particularly to YHRI. --Bdbegonia 05:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lsi john. This has been subject of this talk page earlier and I don't want to repeat what already has been said. However, this is potentially an interesting article, only flawed by pushing in some absurd anti-Scientology conspiracy theories. Compress them, mark them as such or leave them out. Makoshack 05:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... one editor who just registered, and another who has been found to edit from the same IP [12] than an involved editor.

Anyway, the article is about a scientology human rights PR organisation. Thus, well-sourced reactions to it are on topic, as is scientology's well-sourced record on (not) respecting human rights itself. --Tilman 07:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Tilman, I'm not here to debate Scientology. I couldn't care less about Scientology.

• This is an article about YHRI. This is not an article on or about Scientology. The YHRI deserves to be treated with respect and fair coverage in the article. They deserve the presumption of innocence until citable facts show otherwise. General items about Scientology do not belong here, unless they are specific to YHRI (which means they aren't general).
• Bringing reactions to, and views about, Scientology into this article, unless they can be directly tied to YHRI, is original research and is wrong. I respectfully request that you turn the table around, and pick a subject that you support and like and find an example which fits this situation. Then ask yourself if you'd agree with what you're trying to do here.

It's clear to me, just from your editing here, that you don't like Scientology and you are doing your best to make sure the world knows YHRI is a Scientology organization and that there are people in the world who don't like Scientology. If you were truly a neutral editor, I would not be able to see that in your contributions (things you put in, not take out). Remember, I'm not a Scientologist. I don't support Scientology. My very limited exposure to Scientology was negative. If I'm wrong, you're welcome to tell me that you like and support Scientology. If I'm right, ask yourself how I knew. Don't answer me, just ask yourself and think about it.

Sir, your opinion shows in your editing. And when that happens, it is a problem for wiki NPOV articles. Your anger, hatred, dislike, disdain, resentment, fear (whatever emotion is driving you) of Scientology is showing up in your edits. I believe you are probably not even aware of it. I believe that you don't even realize how biased and prejudicial your editing is on this subject. I believe that you are editing in good faith and that you feel your edits are contributing to shed light on these deep dark secrets that you know about. Mr Tilman, when we cross from reporting facts to making sure the world knows, we cross into Original Research. We cross from being neutral editors to being pov editors.

And, before you respond (react), check in on your emotions and feelings about what I've typed here. If you are having a serious reaction to reading my (neutral, third party, objective) views, the odds are that I've hit a nerve and a part of you doesn't want to accept it. If you, or any of us, are editing with emotion, the chances are we are not making an NPOV edit.

• The LA report is inflamatory with no substance, no accusations and no conclusion. Also, there is no controvercy in the citation. It is merely an event, a decision by one man, for reasons unknown. I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of "separation of church and state". There is no indication that the principal would not have required permission slips if it had been any other religious organization. It is simply a media news story which happened to involve YHRI by coincidence. There is no reason to believe this was specifically related to and uniquely because of YHRI. I welcome your response.. explain specifically why this piece of news is relevant to this article.

Lsi john 13:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that you can give some reliable source for this rather libelous statement? Makoshack 07:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Which statement do you consider to be libellous, and why? --Tilman 15:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please justify the use of the word libel, Makoshack.

Are you Tilman, too? Interesting. Still waiting for an answer. Makoshack 08:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think he is, make a checkuser request. --Tilman 15:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying I'm a sock puppet for Tilman, Makoshack? I'm not. Ask an admin and they'll tell you. You have a lot in common with COFS, CSI LA and Misou, as Tilman's link shows: All of you operating behind the same Church firewall. And you're quick to shout libel.Like.liberation 08:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I am noting that you answered for him. Minds alike? Those have a new description nowadays, they are called "meat puppets". Like Scientologists who share a POV you seem to share a POV with Tilman. Ergo: you must be a meat puppet of Tilman. Or he is one of yours. This seems cynic? So is this discussion about a proxy service which I happen to use like some thousand other individuals and which was blocked for several days due to some happenings a couple of thousand kilometers away from me. Enough of changing subject. Tell Tilman I'd like to have an answer to his rather libelous statement above. Thanks. Makoshack 09:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell him yourself, thanks. And I didn't answer for him, I commented on your easy use of the word "libelous," which you still haven't justified. Your ergo's are empty, and cynicism is no excuse for bad faith. Agreement between two parties does not mean meat puppetry.Like.liberation 13:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems there are more than enough easy uses of [libel]. As long as we are citing facts, it doesn't matter if they're libel or not. Could someone please put back the charges against Caberta, please? Thanks. Lsi john 13:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I already tried to explain to you why the accusations by scientology and the (dismissed!) charges against Caberta from years ago have nothing to do with the YHRI topic. If you don't like Caberta, then put this affair in an article about her, or about Minton, where it is relevant. --Tilman 15:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tilman, I want to remind you that you need to support your libelous claim that there would be something like "scientology's well-sourced record on (not) respecting human rights itself". It seems to be so well-sourced that you avoid to answer a simple question for reference for several days now. Makoshack 18:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC) NB: It might be off-wiki to mention (feel free to contact me on E-Mail any time), but since you claim to be Tilman Hausherr I might say that your English writing seems to be relatively good compared to your earlier capabilities. When did you learn English? Makoshack 18:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the insertion of "L.Ron Hubbard's thought" in the lead sentence, it was discussed above. The source is the Sydney Morning Herald article, which describes a YHRI event at which L.Ron Hubbard's thought and image were emphasized at the expense of human rights thinkers like MLK and Gandhi. Given that Hubbard was not a prominent thinker of human rights, and has no recognition among serious organizations in that field, it seems appropriate to mention that his thought is being promoted more than others.Like.liberation 08:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Now how does the Sydney Morning Herald apply for YHRI? It talks about a group in Australia which did an event with Church material - not YHRI material - called "A guidebook to PEACE Through Human Rights" which fits the description of the article and says "Presented as a public service by the Church of Scientology" on its cover. I know this is WP:OR, but so is the article you are referring to here (not in the article). YHRI does focus on the UN Declaration and nothing else. THAT is sourced on their website and in some dozen articles. Makoshack 08:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald article wrote a piece on Youth for Human Rights Australia, a chapter of YHRI, and described the materials that were given to high school there. It sounds like you haven't read the newspaper article yet. YHRI says it focuses on the UN declaration. Other people in respectable publications say otherwise. We're including both viewpoints. Like.liberation 08:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to know how YHRI is organized. Anyway, I won't object to that but changed the "thought" to what LRH actually said, including reference. Are you ok now? Makoshack 09:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald writes: The Church of Scientology is the major sponsor of Youth for Human Rights Australia, the group that organised the youth seminar on March 20 in the NSW Parliament Theatrette.. Are you alleging that Youth for Human Rights Australia is a breakaway group, and/or not connected to YHRI? See also the link to the main YHRI that I added. It's right on the YHRI homepage! --Tilman 16:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That link was not in your citation. You did not say "The Australian arm of YHRI". As a reader, I am not required to research that link, it is your responsibility as an editor to establish it for me. You did not do that, I was not aware of the link, and thus, I deleted based on no connection. Add a connection, link to their website where it says that the two are the same, and my objection disappears. Lsi john 16:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile....

For me, the whole problem here can be boiled down to this:

1. The controversy section is improperly dominating the article. The same information can be summarized without losing the gist of it.

2. The article speaks of YHRI and Scientology interchangeably, and in so doing, is not-so-subtly advocating the "front group" idea and Caberta's position. This is unacceptable. wikipediatrix 14:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And if that is done, the unnotable, irrelevant and biased items vanish.. which gets my support. Lsi john

Well yes, YHRI is a controversial group and an obvious scientology front. Which is shown by the sourced evidence. Of course, delete the evidence and poof! it's no longer controversial. --Tilman 15:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You have established a basis for Scientology being controversial, not YHRI. You are attempting to create controversy by linking to Scientology items. That is OR and not supported by the facts you cite. Lsi john 16:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The sources that you insist on deleting show that YHRI itself is indeed controversial. You're trying to push a positive slant on this group. However, this isn't supported by the documentation. --Tilman 16:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be ORIGINAL RESEARCH. You must show a citation which specifically says they are controversial. You cannot demonstrate that they are controversial. Your own statement seems to acknowledge that you need all the references to demonstrate the controversy.. but that is WP:OR sir. The fact is, you are trying to push a negative slant on this group, and I am trying to enforce wikipedia rules on WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I have no interest in this group or in Scientology. Lsi john 16:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I did demonstrate it. You just don't accept it, regardless of how much documentation is provided. --Tilman 16:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncited

Please provide the exact quotation (article,page,paragraph) which is cited by this statement:

"Specifically, it promotes [1][2] what Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard said about human rights[3]"

Lsi john 16:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is sourced in the Sydney article, and on the YHRI website itself. Read the article. --Tilman 16:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the article. I did not find the wording that is used in the article. That is why I am asking for the specfic location of the information being cited. The statement appears to be making an original argument with a conclusion which is not directly supported by cited material. Lsi john 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

-

Please provide the exact quotation (article, page, paragraph) which supports this statement:

"Controversy over Youth for Human Rights International is twofold."

Lsi john 16:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is in the text. Don't expect "us" to c&p the text here again. --Tilman 16:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see cited material which says that the controversy is 'twofold', 'threefold' or any other 'fold'. I am challenging the accuracy of the citation and am requesting that you provide the specific location in the material being cited. Lsi john 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

-

Please provide the exact quotation (article, page, paragraph) which specifically supports this claim of repeated failure:

"The first stems from the repeated failure on the part of the group to clearly identify its ties to the Church of Scientology."

Lsi john 16:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This, too, is in the sources (some of which you insisted on deleting) - several examples where YHRI "forgot" to mention their ties. --Tilman 16:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

'failure' is a very specific word which carries an accusation.

failure: a failing to perform a duty or expected action

Was there an expectation for them to disclose ties to the CoS? Moreover, what citation specifically says that the first part of the controversy stems from this? Making a claim like this, if uncited, is original research. If you wish to say they 'forgot' to mention their ties, and you can substantiate that with a citable source, it would be significantly different than a repeated failure to clearly identify ties Lsi john 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

Please provide the exact quotation (article, page, paragraph) which links this statement to YHRI:

"Germany considers Scientology to be a commercial organization and a form of political extremism that poses a threat to its democracy and constitution, themselves the basis of human rights in Germany."

Lsi john 16:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

-

Pleasd provide the exact quotation (article,page, paragraph) which links this statement to YHRI:

"Germany considers Scientology to be a commercial organization "

Lsi john 16:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

-

Please provide the exact quotation (article,page, paragraph) which links this (and subsequent) statement(s) to YHRI:

"Other European governments have concerns regarding Scientology and human rights. "

Lsi john 16:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Per the opinion of several editors, this article is unbalanced. Particularly in the section on controversy (which also appears to contain original research).

Please do not remove this tag until a consensus is reached between all the editors.

Lsi john 16:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Overusage of tags

There is an overusage of tags in this article by User:Lsi john. One tag should be sufficient in order to alert other editors to work on the article. More than that in this particular case is simply WP:POINT. Smee 16:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

In my opinion John is insisting that we "prove the obvious". This is very time-wasting, and makes it hard to WP:AGF. Do we really have to explain every word to him until he'll understand? --Tilman 17:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

- Subsection - 3O on template-tag removal by smee, based on argument of 1 tag is sufficient per article.

comments by Lsi_john

There are multiple tags to address multiple concerns from multiple editors about multiple unrelated items. Each tag reflects a different issue with the article and would be removed when that particular issue has been resolved. There is no wiki policy which prohibits multiple tags per article.

It was obvious that removing the (inappropriate/questionable) material, was resulting in edit warring.

Therefore it was appropriate to tag the questionable material for later resolution.

Each tag has an area (above) which asks for further information or justification for the material in question.

Lsi john 16:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have taken this particular article/page off of my watchlist. However, I still feel that this overusage of tags is WP:POINT... Smee 19:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Third Opinion

Summary: No policy, but good form, is to use one tag. Use {{POV}}, preferably.

All the tags on this article boil come to one thing: an editor doesn't agree with the way the article is written. When disagreeing with the way a disputed article is written, the editor who disagrees with the current state has two questions to ask himself, or goals to achieve:

1. How do I explain the problem to other involved editors?
2. How do I get the article to change?
3. How do I warn readers of the dispute?

Number one can be done in different ways. One could place a very specific tag on the article, like {{quotefarm}} or {{reqphoto}}. Templates like these make it immediately clear what is needed, without any clarification on the talk page. Ideal for the editor with little time, or when just stumbling across an article. Other templates, like {{unbalanced}} ask for a detailed clarification on the talk page.

Goal number two can be achieved in different ways too, depending on the situation. When tagging a random stub on an American garage band, barely notable because of some obscure magazine reference, a huge template that looks scary is best. The rare reader of the article will probably know something about the subject, and might just edit the article once it's clear that something is needed. {{Prod}} is the extreme example of this. When tagging an established article that is on the watchlist of several respected editors, one could, and I do, argue for a more careful approach. Large tags, or many small tags, decrease the quality of an article, as they obstruct the view of readers. When placing a complex tag, generally any tag requiring an explanation on the talk page, the benefits of large tags and a lot of tags for the same dispute quickly disappear. It is unlikely a random passer-by will edit the article, and involved editors will read the talk page anyway.

The third and last goal is simple to achieve, by using any related tag. More tags and larger tags will only make the reader confused.

Summarized for this case:

• A lot of tags are present on the article.
• It is unlikely a random passer-by will improve the article due to the nature of the dispute.
• Readers are sufficiently warned by a small tag.
• Involved editors will read the talk page, and need specific explanations, not general tags at the top.
• Though the tags represent different issues, those issues are not clear from the differences between the tags themselves.

Solutions for this case:

• Replace all current tags with the smallest and, in my humble opinion, best neutrality tag around: {{POV}}.
• For specific explanation of the dispute, use the talk page, and/or place {{fact}} tags at specific places.

This is not policy - just common WP:SENSE.

--User:Krator (t c) 20:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

• Thank you. I could not agree more with the entirety of your statement. Thank you for taking the time to provide this neutral un-involved third opinion. Smee 20:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
  • I have implemented the suggestion of the neutral, previously un-involved editor, as suggested above. Smee 20:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

If you don't mind, I have reverted your edit. The other Third Opinion I wrote on a case between the same two editors in the same hour contained the following bit:

"Unless the editor in question is inactive, it is considered good form to let the editor who placed a tag on an article remove it."

That applies here too. --User:Krator (t c) 20:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• In that case, hopefully either that editor, yourself, or the general consensus of other editors will implement your suggestions as noted above. As for me, I am no longer monitoring this article. Smee 21:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

UK and Australia and Canada

I support the merge/deletion of the UK and Australia articles. It's better kept in the main article. (If you wanted examples of critics having different opinions, there it is :-)) --Tilman 17:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And Canada too. --Tilman 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

I support this as well. Smee 17:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Support I thought the separate Australian one was originally created by someone who wanted to slip one past on the quiet without connection to this article. AndroidCat 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Current edit-war

I am removing this material to here for discussion. It has been the subject of recent edit war.

This has led to concerns that YHRI is operating as a "front organization" for Scientology.

In a 1977 raid on Scientology, the FBI seized a memo entitled "PR General Categories of Data Needing Coding" that contained a list of what the memo called "Secret PR Front Groups." Leading the list was "APRL, Alliance for the Preservation of Religious Liberty".

The issues are:

Use of the "front group" or "front organization" term

Justanother

How in the world can we quote a German language article to provide an English language loaded term. That term is NOT in the German article and Caberta's remark translates as the YHRI is one of a number of group that mask their connection to Scn. To "translate" that to "YHRI is a front group" is pure OR.

I'd like to draw your attention to an article published August 28,2006 in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, perhaps Germany's greatest newspaper. The article is titled "The Scientology System," it's by Florentine Fritzen, and you can read it here: [13]

YHRI is referred to in English, under the sub-heading: Werbung unter falschen Namen, or Advertising under a false name. FAZ reported that YHRI was passing out DVD's with no mention of their affiliation to Scientology, but only the claim that it collaborated with Amnesty International. FAZ then asked the Amnesty office in Berlin, and the international HQ in London, and neither had any knowledge of such collaboration.

Furthermore, Antje Blumenthal, a member of the German Bundestag, said in a June 2006 press release:"YHRI covers up its true Scientology connection." For the full press release, go here: [14]. For Blumenthal's site, go here: [15]

Now let's assume that the definition of front group is: "an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden."

We have numerous sources that say YRHI has hidden the sponsorship of and affiliation with Scientology in its outreach campaigns. Those same sources show that, at its conferences, YHRI has promoted L.Ron Hubbard's writings, which are not particularly illuminating on the subject of human rights, as Makoshack's link to the Hubbard article on Patriotism shows. [16] We have several government officials and solid publications that claim YHRI acts as a cover for Scientology. I think all this justifies the statement: This has led to concerns that YHRI is operating as a "front organization." Like.liberation 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Front group "backstory"

Justanother

And since we have no RS that YHRI is a "front group" then any OR-ish exposition of the alleged history of the CoS and alleged "front groups" is even more inappropriate and, again, pure OR.

Darrenhusted

Having looked at a number of the references, I can't see a massive misquotation problem. The website for YHRI does not make any reference to Scientology or CofS, and this is the behaviour of a front group, if there were a way to connect CofS and YHRI just by using the official website then Justanother may have a point, find the link on YHRI website that gives away its connection to CofS. Darrenhusted 12:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No one's disputing that the two are obviously connected. The point is, groups can be connected to Scientology and not be "front groups" for them. The term comes from the organized crime/mafia world, and to apply this term to any organization just because they're affiliated with Scientology is blatantly POV. wikipediatrix 14:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It all boils down to "Human rights are great so long as it is not those damn Scientologists doing the asking." A very familiar tune indeed. --Justanother 15:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly deceptive. The group isn't called "Scientologists for human rights" (an oxymoron anyway, considering this: [17][18][19]), or (better) "The scientology PR committee", it is called "Youth for human rights" and it is about promoting "humanitarian" Hubbard. --Tilman 16:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if that were true, a group has every right to do that without Wikipedia judging it as a "front group". Notice how the Salvation Army article manages to make clear that group's connections to the Christian Church without calling them a "front group". wikipediatrix 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't judge. Its the quoted experts who do. If you have any source praising YHRI for having a genuine interest in human rights, feel free to add them.

The Salvation Army doesn't mask its connection to Christianity. It's obvious that they work for The Lord and not for the Army. --Tilman 17:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

YHRI doesn't mask its connection to Scientology either. Their site clearly states that YHRI is a program of the International Foundation for Human Rights and Tolerance, which is openly Scientology-related. wikipediatrix 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, these sources where it did mask its connection to Scientology keep popping up. --Tilman 21:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So what? Just because a pile of parts exists doesn't mean you get to build a Frankenstein out of them and call it an article. You are proceeding from the false and POV assumption that there's something inherently wrong in masking their connection to Scientology. Which, as I've said, they don't anyway. In every one of those cases you refer to, anyone with an iota of sense could have gone online and seen their Scientology connection in minutes, if not seconds. You see, Tilman, in free countries, groups aren't legally or even morally required to wear their ownership or their affiliation on their sleeve. Giving undue weight to dull-witted sour-grapes whiners (even if they are sourced whiners) makes for a lousy encyclopedia article. wikipediatrix 21:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard the word "front group" as a mafia term. I know it in the context of bogus/deceptive organisations. For example, "citizens for a free Kuwait" was a Hill & Knowlton front. --Tilman 16:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a translation mistake then. I note that like.liberation (French? German?) has the same trouble to understand this English word. A case of WP:BIAS, it seems. Makoshack 17:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Businesses, organizations and groups are referred to as "a front for the mafia" in virtually every book, movie or TV show on the subject. wikipediatrix 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Colloquial usage does not always determine or accurately define a word. The mafia are not the only people who can enjoy the use of front groups. The term can apply to organizations used for political, religious, criminal and/or financial purposes. The CIA used and uses front groups. The front group article refers to Scientology using them. The term is perfectly appropriate here.

Groups can be affiliated with Scientology and not be front groups. However, when those groups are founded, staffed and financed by Scientology, but not forthcoming about that connection, then they are hiding it. There are many ways to hide things (in this case, the Scientology connection is evident only if one already knows, and many people don't). Plenty of people who have come into contact with YHRI didn't know of its affiliation with Scientology, and were upset when they found out. So upset that news organizations covered it. Those media have proven to be much more reliable than YHRI or Scientology in reporting facts, and those facts show a clear pattern of concealment.

This assumes several facts not in evidence and given that it is prominently posted on their website the usage of the term hiding it seems a bit silly, don't you think? There is a difference between hiding and not carrying around 4'x4' Scientology posters everywhere they go. Oh wait! Better yet, lets put nice little tatoos on their foreheads! No wait, they'd grow long hair, lets think of some way to make them glow in the dark to alert all unsuspecting people of the lure that lies within. Lsi john 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not prominently posted on their web site, Lsi John. The front page makes no mention of it, nor do many others. Their web site aside, I am arguing that several groups that YHRI has tried to work with didn't know about the Scientology affiliation. The Sydney Herald reported that the high schoolers and Australian parliament member invited to a human rights conference didn't know. UPI reported that Los Angeles high school administrators didn't know, and that, only once they found out did they ask for permission slips. The SP Times said the Florida holocaust museum was upset once it found out, which was after it had agreed to sponsor the march. That's pretty much word for word what was reported. What in that do you dispute? Do you deny that a pattern is apparent? YHRI convinces other groups to work with it, all the while hiding its Scientology affiliation. Do you think that shouldn't be mentioned?Like.liberation 13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, it has been shown that, once in contact with minors, YHRI has been involved promoting L. Ron Hubbard's writing. Now Hubbard wrote nothing of note on human rights. His work in that field is so insignificant as to be laughable. The article Makoshack referred Wikipedia's good readers to is a screed against taxes and a "blood-soaked terror symbol like the psychiatrist." We can assume, therefore, that when Hubbard's writings on human rights are being taught, it is chiefly Hubbard that is being taught -- and this to schoolchildren. Thus the concern that YHRI is serving as a veil, a cover-up tactic: a front group. Or do you dispute the definition above?

Who cares if Hubbard wrote nothing of note on human rights?? Opinionated statements like that are of no use in editing an encyclopedia. I couldn't care less what nonsense the YHRI teaches, it has no bearing on how we're supposed to edit articles. They can teach the works of Adolf Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer for all I care, the article violates WP:NPOV and I'm looking for editors who can put their own personal feelings about Scientology aside long enough to clean it up. wikipediatrix 03:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your statements above, wikipediatrix, display an alarming disdain for what, in any context, is one of the most important questions our article should answer: Does YHRI teach human rights as it claims? By your own admission, you "couldn't care less." I don't think that reflects the interests of any one who would turn to this article for reliable information.

Again, you're confusing criticism with being opinionated. If you had knowledge of the human rights field, you would know that no one working in it has read Hubbard, and that his conceptual contributions are nil -- not because he is underread, but because his writings are vacuous. The fact that he is not read by serious human rights activists seems ample evidence of that. Which again raises the question: Why would anyone teach Hubbard's writings on human rights?Like.liberation 13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you know the Red Cross distributes pamphlets that talk about things besides blood donations?!!! That horrible red cross. Shut them down I say. Find a citation that says they distributed RLH material, and put it in the article in a neutral and non judgmental manner. Don't make it all nice and juicy and overstate it to help the reader know what we already know to be true. This is wikipedia.. it's not the Rick Ross website. We don't get to write what we think and smear organizations because we're righteous. Darn it, we have to stick to related and relevant facts. Lsi john 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find the comparison between the Red Cross, which has nothing to hide, and Scientology, which has everything, to be absurd. I do believe that organizations that enter into the field of human rights -- despite a track record of deceit and suspected themselves of human rights abuses -- deserve, in a wikipedia article, to be covered in depth, rather than glossed over.

Do you know Leo Rosten's definition of chutzpah? Chutzpah is when a man arrested for the murder of his mother and father throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.Like.liberation 13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This article fairly portrays everything good about YHRI, insofar as YHRI is good at all. None of its beneficence has been erased. It also lets well-sourced critical opinions be heard, although those opinions have been repeatedly censored by those who confuse criticism with bias. Criticism is not less valid because it is strong. It would be a fallacy to assume that in the pursuit of "balance" we have to supply one positive statement to offset every negative one. That balance would be a fiction for many other articles besides this one. Like.liberation 22:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And because we can't find any documented evidence which directly links YHRI to improper or criminal behavior means we get to make some up.. or better yet, get some unrelated facts about CoS and drag that into the picture? We'll teach those nasty YHRI's to mess with us, yes indeed. This article may fairly portray the good about YHRI, but it unfairly brings in unrelated bias against CoS which this article is not about. It brings in unsubstantiated allegations that would be thrown out of any court in a heartbeat. It brings in a decision by a principal to require permission slips. Why did he do it? We don't really know. It could simply be that any activity which involved any group connected to any religion would have prompted the same reaction. Clearly thats not important though, because this way we can twist the raw data to show that people are afraid of YHRI. What ever happened to journalistic integrity? Lsi john 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Journalistic integrity, my friend, is precisely why we know that YHRI is hiding its affiliation. Time after time that has been reported. It is an absolute lack of journalistic integrity that would suppress the evidence those articles present. I find the enforced silence and lack of critical attention that you and wikipediatrix support here to be a perfect example of what journalism fights: censorship.Like.liberation 13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

from Wikipedia's own "sacred scriptures"

From WP:NPOV: "it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct."

and: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization."

In the meantime, we might as well rename this article List of Every Possible Negative and Misleading Thing we could Possibly Scrape up About the YHRI. wikipediatrix 21:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

s/Scrape up/Scrape up or make up/ Lsi john 00:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ad Hominem edits against Ursula Caberta

There we go again - wikipediatrix reinserted the "dirt" against Caberta, sourced on an OSA smear letter, that was published by Gerry Armstrong as an example of black PR. The argument: Caberta's past history with them is extremely relevant. By this logic, one could also add every court case between Caberta and scientology from the last 15 years, and mention the criticism by the US state department, and the lawsuit against Caberta in the USA (which was dismissed too, of course).

This 5 year old dismissed case about the Minton loan is irrelevant to the YHRI case. Even YHRI itself never mentioned the case in defending itself. Caberta didn't lose her job. The case was dismissed after the payment, i.e. she has a clean record. If anyone want to dump on Caberta, do it in Ursula Caberta where it belongs, and source it properly, and respect WP:BLP. --Tilman 05:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting spin. It's like someone busted for drunken driving who manages to get it taken off his record. Just because her record was cleared doesn't erase that she made a payment to avoid further investigation of her corruption. I have no love for either Caberta or Scientology - but Scientology's own criticisms of their attackers belongs here, even if as just a very short paragraph. The article doesn't have to say the claims are necessarily true, it just needs to acknowledge that the CoS contends that most of these claims against them are being made by corrupt and biased German politicians whose anti-cult and anti-Scientology zeal is well known. wikipediatrix 14:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Great bit here. Very illustrative. Can we now assume that Tilman is going to be removing "dirt" against Scientology and Scientologists that is only "sourced" on highly POV non-RS sites. And Tilman will also remove everything against Scientology and Scientologists that is not current. Tell you what, I will give you Lisa on; everything before that being "irrelevant". ps I see that like.lib continues to buld his own little blog article here. --Justanother 14:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone inserts something unsourced about scientology topics (e.g. "Miscavige is a founding member of the 1.1 club", then I'll remove it. --Tilman 17:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Im curious, since Mr Tilman is fighting the Caberta court case, because its not been proven, why does he include allegations against YHRI that are also unproven.

Also, why does he include allegations made against CoS which were not directly targeted at YHRI?

This seems to be strange logic and I am open to a concise explanation. Lsi john 14:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, in I assumed the article being cited against Caberta was a reliable source as several editors had been re-including it. I am unfamiliar with the subject matter and was re-including based on the fact that several editors were re-including it and Mr Tilman had failed to make a credible argument that it was a Hate Site and the story was not reliable. His rhetoric of 'libel' and other emotional outbursts in his edit-comments, combined with the fact that he was insisting on including unsubstantiated allegations in a prejudicial manner, led me to conclude that the source was reliable. Making an unemotional and undramatic argument would have been much more convincing. My apologies for re-including a poorly sourced citation. Justanother, Thank you for correcting my mistake with a reasonable (though admittedly colorful) comment which explained why it was improper. Lsi john 14:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, great logic: if several inserted it, then its a reliable source. I've explained several times why the text is 1) untrue, and 2) poorly sourced. And yes, its libel. I'm not the "emotional" guy here: I was cool enough to be count 1, 2, 3, 4. --Tilman 17:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your problem with Caberta may be, I suggest you handle this outside of Wikipedia. This is not the place for poorly sourced material, or for "there was something unrelated fives years ago against that person, so I must include it". --Tilman 17:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Tilman, in all fairness, this same statement applies to whatever your problem with Scientology is. YHRI is not CoS and deserves to be treated separately. If they are violating things, there will be citable articles about them. It really isn't any more fair to bring in Germany's journalist's writing's about CoS than it is to bring in the material you are objecting to. That stuff really doesn't belong here. I'm requesting that you please step back and think about it. This isn't going to be solved by edit wars. We're all going to have to come to a consensus. Lsi john 19:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

NEUTRAL German Language Expert

Would a Neutral third party please translate the two German Links and properly word the statement in a NPOV manner? Thank you. Lsi john 13:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

translation by uninvolved neutral 3rd party

Caberta's accusations: [here]

Reporter's claims: [here]

-reserved space for uninvolved bi-lingual translation comments (below)

involved editor comments

The last rewrite of the controversy section is a misstatement. No journalist cited has called YHRI a "front group," for which, in German, there may be no direct translation. Tarnorganisation, or camouflage organization, comes closest. FAZ named YHRI in an article that accused Scientology of "false advertising," and the recruitment of youth through deceitful means. Die Welt quoted Caberta as saying YHRI was a "cover-up tactic." "Front group" unites the two meanings: Concealment of affiliation, and the pursuit other goals than those stated.Like.liberation 14:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; "front group" is OR. I have said that repeatedly. Feel free to phrase it as they say it and if they say two different things then tell us about two different things; do not "unite the two meanings" in the POV OR fashion that you might prefer. --Justanother 14:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you prefer to say YHRI has been accused of false advertising and recruiting for Scientology to calling it a "front group," that's fine with me. In my book, they mean the same thing.Like.liberation 15:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

selective source spin

To say that "Some journalists have accused Scientology of false advertising" is deliberately misleading when both of those sources are German and it is widely known that Scientology is widely hated in Germany. One could just as easily use such sneaky journalism to promote Scientology's own propaganda and post that "Some journalists have accused Psychiatry of starting World War II" and then linking to publications like Impact and Freedom. wikipediatrix 15:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. How about "A German journalist..." ? Modify instead of revert if the citation is relevant. The fact that its a scientology citation, makes it irrelevant, but I wasn't choosing to fight that battle. I was making it accurate. And I had posted a request for accurate translation at the wiki help desk. Lsi john 15:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If those sources are to return to the article, they need to be presented with their contentious context made clearer, and then we get back to the whole problem of these extraneous matters dominating an article that is supposed to be about the YHRI, not its parent company. Perhaps we need a Scientology and Germany article, where all this would logically belong, and then the YHRI article can simply link to it instead of dwelling on all these matters that don't directly concern it. wikipediatrix 15:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm already on record as saying that unless it is YHRI specific, it doesn't belong here in anything other than perhaps a very casual and brief comment. Other than edit warring, which I prefer to avoid, I am left with getting the citations accurate and without spin. You adeptly pointed out that it was a German reporter, which could suggest bias, given a pretty clearly painted picture by Tilman's references, that Germany has an issue with Scientology. He did a good job of illustrating that for us. Stating that it was a German reporter, and including it in the -miscellaneous scientology area- would certainly seem to group all the bias together from the same global source. Lsi john 16:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of that which we were not speaking.. is Caberta still a commissioner, or should that read former? Lsi john 16:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she still has the job. [20] --Tilman 17:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Tilman, how about a truce? I can't read german, and have no idea what your link says. It would also be nice if you replaced the French citation with the correct translation that I obtained, which wikipediatrix removed. I don't want an edit war, I want a neutral article. The french translation you have there, is not neutral and I don't believe it is technically a fair translation for what was said. Lsi john 19:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In Brussels last year, Julie Barreau, a reporter for Le Soir magazine, recorded the speaker of a Scientology meeting as saying: "It is necessary to educate the forces of the fourth Reich to human rights." The reporter then explained that Scientologists consider any government that does not recognize Scientology as a religion to be the same as the Nazis, and thus the usage of the term fourth Reich."

That is the translation I obtained and it sounds more like what someone would say. When I read "take control of Brussels" alarms of MisTranslation go off in my head. Please at least consider using this version. Lsi john 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Tilman, please review the reverts.. I did not delete them. In fact, I don't believe I deleted anything. rv2 no, consensus was FOR these segments - just you and LSI John insist on deleting them)-Tilman You have put back an older version of the text, not the version that I had. I did not delete, I corrected the translations. Lsi john 19:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll check this. I was a bit quick on the trigger. I'll check if you made improvements, and I'll check the french text (I do understand french). Give me a few minutes. --Tilman 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right there, sorry. I'm also trying to get an image of the original. --Tilman 19:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I received an image of the original. The text is accurate, the formatting on the site is not (the part in bold isn't so in the original, but this didn't have an influence on wikipedia). --Tilman 08:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Tilman, the translation I was given is:

"It is necessary to educate the forces of the fourth Reich to human rights."

Which really does sound more like what someone would be saying or intending to mean. Lsi john 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "educate... to human rights" bad grammar? (Even the french text "éduquer ... aux droits de l’homme" feels weird too)

Anyway, what I did was to add the context, where the reporter tries to explain what scientology thinks. It sort of waters down the previous text, but since its in the source, ok. --Tilman 19:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've now cleaned up after myself, mostly. See this diff [21] - now the differences between Johns last version and "mine" are no longer that big. I really was too quick this time, instead of quietly analyzing the changes. I'll go to sleep in 1-3 hours anyway, so I won't bother you for some time :-) --Tilman 20:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically educating in would be correct in english. I am educated in the field of programming. In this context, the quote "we must educate them about human rights" is also proper english. When translating I believe the meaning is much more important than a literal translation.

In English "We must take control of Belgium" is probably not what she was trying to say. I don't want to change her meaning, but I also don't want to take it directly to english and have it mean the wrong thing either. The way it is right now, sounds harsher than I suspect it was intended in German. Lsi john 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The original french is "Nous devons prendre le contrôle de la Belgique", and it sounds harsh indeed. Translated, this really means "We must take control of Belgium". --Tilman 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

May I ask, was this a YHRI or CoS event/speaker? Lsi john 20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a scientology event, the opening of their "office for human rights" in Brussels. --Tilman 08:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

revert-warring without discussion

Tilman has twice reverted to a version he likes in the last few minutes, even though he couldn't be bothered to respond to the "selective source spin" discussion above (except for a commentless link). I'm still not hearing any logical reasons why this material belongs in this article. wikipediatrix 17:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that a few (actually, just 2) are deleting large amounts of well sourced material, and shuffle things around a bit. This has been discussed before. Read it. --Tilman 17:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read it and remain unconvinced of the need to load the article with negative material from biased sources, some of which doesn't even mention the YHRI by name. Then again, I'm not on a personal vendetta against Scientology, so maybe that's my problem. wikipediatrix 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither am I. And these aren't biased sources. FAZ and Le Soir are well respected papers. Same for Caberta - she's well respected. She has kept her job for 15 years, while her supervisor (Wellinghausen) at the time of the scientology-instigated investigation was fired, and his supervisor (Schill, who tried to blackmail the mayor) as well. This just to put things into perspective. --Tilman 18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad a truce is in the air, but why was the FAZ quote removed? It mentioned YRHI by name, provided evidence that they were hiding their affiliation, and quoted Amnesty as saying they knew of no collaboration with YHRI. Saying Germany is biased against Scientology is like saying America is biased against Islam. The statement is too general to be meaningful. We might equally say that Scientology has issues with Germany... or with human rights. FAZ is the NYT of Germany; charges of bias are ill-founded, and removing its criticism would be a whitewashing.Like.liberation 15:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad you noticed it. More and more, I notice that it's important to check articles for changes even if "trusted" editors did the last edits, because they sometimes miss something in the shuffle.

I thought I had caught everything yesterday, seems that I missed that. Or maybe I restored the wrong paragraph, since I later noticed that one was double. I really screwed up yesterday.

The Lsi John of yesterday is certainly friendlier than the one before, I am glad of this. Makes me feel better too, and hopefully friendlier too. --Tilman 15:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr Tilman.

In reality, I'd like to think that I'm a very friendly person. From a personal perspective, what I've found is that resistance meets resistance and energy seeks to meet other energy. While its a bit philosophical, I believe that the person with the stronger intention will determine the level of energy. Someone reported me for 4R violation and 24 hours later, I was blocked. I interpreted that as a hostile and aggressive act (just my feeling of it). Yesterday, Tilman clearly went 4R on the article. My first reaction was to meet the hostile energy with equal hostility and get a justified block. But I backed up, thought about it, and made a choice to bring a lower level of less agression to the table. The result was that Tilman saw me as friendlier and he then cooperated in compromise. I didn't change. I changed the way I responded. And, thus changed the way people perceived me.

I'm neutral on this article. My bias, if its a bias, is against POV. Blantent or even subtle twists in actual fact (from EITHER side), are POV and I don't believe they belong on wiki. The only question after that is What is blatant or subtle POV?.. which is what discussion and compromise are about. Lsi john 15:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

translation

Could someone summarize what this means? A literal translation is confusing. It seems to say the youth are misled but acknowledges working conditions are not fair.

Blumenthal erklärt, die Aktion erscheine zunächst als überaus seriös, der gute Wille der Jugendlichen würde aber missbraucht. Ähnliche Aufrufe von Schweizer Politikern sind nicht bekannt. Bekannt ist allerdings, dass Scientology-Mitarbeiter unter Bedingungen arbeiten müssen, die oft nicht im Einklang mit unseren Grundrechten stehen..

Lsi john 21:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Blumenthal explains that the activity looks very serious at first sight, but that the good will of the young people is being misused. No similar calls from swiss politicians are known. What is known, however, is that scientology staff work under conditions that often are not compatible with our basic rights.

Btw, the part just before: «grössten Vorsicht». Scientology stehe «nach wie vor im Visier der Verfassungsschützer» means that she advises strong caution, and that scientology is still watched by the office for the protection of the constitution. (This is an office that watches extremists, i.e. right and left wing extremists, neo-nazis, scientologists, islamists etc). --Tilman 08:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. German sentence structure doesnt translate very well to english. ;) Und ich spreche nicht Deutsch. or something. My concern is to make sure if we're quoting someone, that we quote them, and not the reporter. There were not good Quote marks in that article and it was tough to tell if the reporter was paraphrasing. If that was a reporter's version, then our article should say so. Just for accuracy. The reporter could have paraphrased, slightly misquoted or rearranged. If, as you say, they are a watch-group, (nothing against them for that), their goal would be to (re)word or phrase it in their views. That should be accurately reported if we are going to cite it as a fact. Lsi john 14:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a huge deal here, since our citation is not as a quote. Though we might say "according to xxxx, reporter for xxxx, mr aaaa expressec concern.... Lsi john 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to have a section titled Scientology in Europe, and mention what Scientology has testified before the OSC, then we should restore the French government report on sects' influence on children's mental and physical health. It mentions Scientology, youth and human rights, which are all at issue here.Like.liberation 15:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of stirring things up now that they're settling down, but I have a question. In looking at the restored paragraph, I'm not sure that I see how concerns about the effects of Scientology practices on youth relate to YHRI, unless YHRI is using the practices in question. Is there some sort of a claim that YHRI uses Scientology practices? Just curious. Bdbegonia 02:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Bdbegonia, one of the areas of contention here has been the inclusion of seemingly unrelated Scientology information in this article on YHRI. (Excuse me for paraphrasing for both viewpoints). One viewpoint claims that unless it specifically mentions YHRI that it is irrelevant or is WP:OR by tying a link between charges against CoS and YHRI. The other viewpoint claims that YHRI is COS, for all intents and purposes and thus human rights violations charges against CoS (especially as they relate to youth) are relevant to this article. I'm in the first group. However, as you noted, things are calming down a bit, and much of the article seems to be hammered out. Cooling off is a good thing. Lsi john 02:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

CoverUP

This doesn't read very well in English:

"said YHRI serves as a cover-up tactic for Scientology"

It actually doesn't make sense unless you finish it with "coverup tactic for Scientology recruiting" or something else.. but since I cant read the German, I can't help get the accurate translation. Lsi john 15:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. A direct translation would be "veiling tactic." Not much more helpful. That's one reason why I pushed, perhaps too long, for "front group." They are saying that YHRI is Scientology with another name, pursuing its parent group's interests. Seeing as how it's delicate, I'll leave it for the moment, since it has the merit of being accurate at least, if not as readable as we'd like. Has a third-party translator taken a swing at it?Like.liberation 17:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

a) Front Group has a rather sinister implication.

a) Tactic doesn't sit well, though they may well have intended that meaning. Its a bit prejudicial and inflamatory. Method would be a less prejudicial word but I wouldn't suggest downgrading their citation any more than I would permit overstating it.

b) I removed my 3rd party help-desk request. With the edit warring, and daily change of the text, it was unlikely that we would get anyone interested in translating. Assuming its what they really meant, I would be satisfied with something on the order of "said that Scientology isn't disclosing its involvment as fully as it could and is using YHRI to further its own goals".. again assuming thats what they're saying, in a paraphrased way. If not, then of course I wouldn't support it. I'm also not wiki-savy about how much liberty we have in translating to English from other languages in order to provide a reaonable citation. Lsi john 21:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Tactic," alas, is the literal and intended meaning -- it sounds like a critical term because it comes from the mouth of a critic. Why don't we put it in quotes? I think the point is that YHRI is not disclosing Scientology's involvement as it should, and that the latter is using YRHI to further its own goals. They are saying that, but not verbatim, so the question is: what kind of phrasing can we agree upon? For the sake of this discussion, it might be best if you relied on a translator besides myself. Like.liberation 11:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A cornucopia of neverending disagreement

Just thought I'd point out that most of the issues that people have been bitterly debating and nitpicking here for weeks now would also apply to the articles for Concerned Businessmen's Association of America, International Academy of Detoxification Specialists, The Way to Happiness Foundation International, Association for Better Living and Education, Sterling Management Systems, International Foundation for Human Rights and Tolerance, World Literacy Crusade, Hubbard College of Administration International, Citizens for Social Reform and many more! Why, there's enough bones of contention here to keep editors busy for the rest of the year! (And don't forget Youth for Human Rights Australia, Youth for Human Rights Canada, and Youth for Human Rights U.K..... does every country's branch of it really need its own separate article??) wikipediatrix 00:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Can a reasonable case be made for consolidation? Lsi john 00:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it's so blatant I'm half-tempted to be WP:BOLD and merge them myself. I see no reason whatsover to devote separate articles to each YHRI office in each country. I can't think of any other Scientology "front group" (said with a wink) that we do this for. wikipediatrix 01:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I just checked with my wife, she said I could wink back. *wink*wink* I'm not a wiki-attorney and don't know wiki-law. One minute something is a blockable offense and the next its an innocent accident. I'll support your consolidation, but I won't start it. *wink*wink* Lsi john 01:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I did suggest a merge, too. Smee and AndroidCat agreed. What's the correct way to do it? Just do it (merge and overwrite with redirection), or RFC, or AFD? --Tilman 05:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, the individual branches are simply non-notable. No referenced citations are provided to back up any claim to notability at the moment. I will tag as such. Smee 12:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
  • I did not tag the article, Youth for Human Rights Australia. It is the only one of the three with a reputable citation, and a bit of information that should be merged into this article. Smee 12:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

• Hopefully you tagged them as stubs, in order to give people time to respond. That would be the fair and polite thing to do, and it's how I would want to be treated. Lsi john 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, they are non-notable at present, and no effort has been made to assert any notability. Those that wish for them to remain as articles can use the {{hangon}} tag, below the speedy delete tag, and explain a case for reasoning of notability on the talk page, and add citations to the article itself. Smee 12:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

• Given your edit history, your action could be viewed as having COI on the issue. I believe I have seen you request more time on articles (psi world?) when they were found to be non-notable. Since you have not allowed a neutral editor to tag them, I'll do you a favor and stick hang-on on them to give other editors a chance to update them. Lsi john 12:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever, I thought it was you that thought the articles were superfluous, this changing of tactics midstream once I got involved to help out is quite amusing. Smee 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

• I'm sorry that you find my edits amusing. Having sport with me would seem to go against your code of conduct. I never suggested they be speedy deleted. It was never agreed that they be speedy deleted. It was suggested that they be merged and you have made no effort to merge them. I have no tactics and I resent your choice of wording, it is accusatory and rude.

My position has not changed. I believe the articles can be merged into one article, based on the content they currently contain. I also believe that it should be discussed and I believe that other editors should be given an opportunity to have input in the discussion. Using Speedy delete is heavy handed. You have made no effort to include anything in this article related to those other organizations. I never implied or suggested I would support simply deleting them.

Your action was not consistent with what wikipediatrix suggested. Lsi john 12:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The merge tag is much more appropriate. You may delete my holdon when you delete the speedy. Thank you. Lsi john 12:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why the need for speedy delete? What is the rush? It's sure to antagognize editors who are CoS. The articles are obviously under documented and will be merged or deleted eventually. Why rush it? What's the hurry? Wikipedia isn't out of disk space. The articles are already being discussed for merge. How does speedy delete work to bridge the gap of respect and compromise? To me, it seems to generate tension, not mitigate it. Lsi john 13:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to talk everything to death around here. Three editors with three very different POVs - you, me and Smee - all agreed the articles were superfluous, and that's good enough for me. wikipediatrix 12:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then someone needs to merge them into this article and then have them deleted and redirected. My only objection was to decide and have them speedy deleted within an hour, before anyone had a chance to weigh in. As nobody seems to be objecting, then we should, by all means, move forward with the first step - merge. Lsi john 13:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Except for YHRA, I created the entries, and for what it's worth, I'm fine with the merge. In general, what's the protocol for merge suggestions? Should the major contributors agree? Should they carry it out?Like.liberation 08:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Merged

I merged the other three articles, and am soliciting comments prior to asking for the other articles to be deleted and Linked to this one. Lsi john 14:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I like what you'all have done. The article is definitely starting to shape up and look like something that belongs in an encyclopedia. Well done. --Justanother 15:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientology Workgroup of the Hamburg Interior Authority

What is this group? Is it a Scientology watchdog group? Is it specifically critical of Scientology? If so, that should probably be mentioned so the reader has a context for the paragraph. Lsi john 14:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't "critical of Scientology" any more than the FBI was when it uncovered Operation Snow White. --FOo 18:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are using a different definition of critical? I'm not asking if it is overly critical. I'm not suggesting there is nothing to be critical of. I'm trying to find out if that specific group was created with the sole intention of watching/monitoring/analyzing Scientology and if so, is there a general pattern in its findings about Scientology? By asking 'is it critical', I am asking is it 'always' critical? Is it 80% critical?

I can't read German, I'm not familiar with the subject or that organization. So I'm asking. Readers have a right to know the nature of the source. They also have a right to know if the source is pre-disposed to a particular point of view. Therefore, I'm asking "What is that group? What is their function? What is their task? What do they do?". If the group is a neutral group, then that should be said. If the source is a CoS group, then that should be said. If the source is predominantly critical of CoS than that should be noted.

So, back to my questions: What is this group? Is it a Scientology watchdog group? Is it specifically critical of Scientology? Lsi john 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I created a stub for it. There is some material in English on their web site. It is a Scientology watchdog group, and it was created with that intention, in addition to serving as a resource for Scientologists who wish to exit the organization but don't know how.Like.liberation 11:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Spin

C'mon folks. this article is getting much better. Please don't add Spin and bias. LL, that gentleman's Catholic beliefs are very relevant and go to credibility. The paragraph is factual and NPOV, why spin it just to make it sound worse? It raises the question you want raised. Why add speculation and innuendo? Seriously, go find some real dirt. Leave the stuff we've hashed out alone. Lsi john 12:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Once you get the article hashed out with the present group of editors looking at it, you'll have to go through it all over again - and again and again - when some other editors pass through and start monkeying around with it a few weeks, a few months, next year, etc. It's like building a sand castle in a hurricane. Keep in mind Wikipediatrix's Axioms #1 and 2.

I'm not sure the article is getting much better, its bias is still there, just more subtle. There is no reason for a section called "Scientology in Europe" in the article since the article is not about Scientology. That material more properly belongs in the "controversy" section. And do we have a source for the intro's claim that the YHRI is "financed by Scientologists"? And why is the LeSoir quote about Scientology relevant to an article that is about the YHRI and not specifically about Scientology? And where in the sources does it support the statement that Germany considers Scientology to be "political extremism"? That phrase does not occur in either of the citations. wikipediatrix 13:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was perfect, and it's sad to see people trying so hard to make fire from smoke. But going from overt and blatant bias to subtle bias, would fall into my definition of getting much better, as would going from hourly revert wars to fairly stable for several days ;) (ahem) often the subject... :P Lsi john 13:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, do you pay any attention to what other people write in this talk page? All your questions have been talked to death already and answered ad infinitum. Re: political extremism, the German Embassy says this: "The [German] government is also concerned that the organization's totalitarian structure and methods may pose a risk to Germany's democratic society." The Die Welt article we cite for the Caberta paragraph is title "A form of political extremism," which refers to you know who. Like.liberation 14:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's take it step by step, real slow-like, okay? Look at the article. Okay? You will see the paragraph says "Germany considers Scientology to be a commercial organization and a form of political extremism that poses a threat to its democracy and constitution, themselves the basis of human rights in Germany." Okay? You will see that neither of the two sources for that paragraph are the Die Welt article you are speaking of. One is germany.info and the other is verfassungsschutz-bw.de. Okay? wikipediatrix 14:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

LL, actually I agree that those charges, which are strictly against Scientology, do not belong here. Rather than fight to keep them out, I have simply focused on making them accurate. A very slight case could be made when the allegations reference youth, but even that is not directly related to YHRI. Lsi john 14:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC

wikipediatrix, what do "totalitarian structure and methods" mean? Totalitarian is a term that applies to the realm of politics, and any totalitarianism is extreme. Any threat to democracy and a democratic constitution is extremism. Not a large conceptual leap. But if it makes you feel better, add the Die Welt ref to the Germany paragraph. "Political extremism," for what it's worth, was never in quotes.

As for YHRI funding, the Herald article states that it is largely sponsored by CoS.

Lsi john, those paragraphs have survived, with reason, a slew of objections already -- some of which you have been here for, and others that were made before you arrived. YHRI only has significance in this context, as a tool to teach the 4th Reich about human rights.

As for Clarke, I don't find his religious beliefs relevant. I think his membership in Opus Dei would undermine credibility more than it established his neutrality vis-a-vis Scientology. In any case, it's too granular, and marginal to the thrust of the article. The reaction of the high schoolers and Dept of Ed outweighed the ink he got. What I wrote there was almost a direct quote from the article, itself quoting a government agency. Justanother and I had this discussion weeks ago and settled it. It makes no sense to quote the whole article, on the one hand, or to privilege Clarke among the sources, on the other. Like.liberation 15:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The citations attached to that paragraph do not say what the paragraph says, it's simple as that. "Political extremism" is a totally subjective (that means "matter of opinion", see) and totally loaded term, and one that's pretty ironic considering that Germany's own political extremism in going after Scientology is out of step with the rest of the planet. And if the Herald is the source for the "financed by Scientologists" claim, the article needs to say so. wikipediatrix 15:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that you don't know what the citations say, you're not in much of a position to judge. Again, I suggest that you ask for a neutral third-party translation. Pending that, I will translate some of the passages, which are in fact much more damning than the term "political extremism." I would submit to our readers that any organization on the right or the left that aims at the overthrow of democratic government as we know it is a form of "political extremism," and deserves to be called by its rightful name. The Baden-Wuerttemburg site says as much, and at length:

"Scientology counts between 100,000 and 120,000 adherents worldwide, between 5,000 and 6,000 in Germany. It was founded in 1954 by Lafayette Ronald HUBBARD (1911-1986). Scientology sees the teachings developed by Hubbard as belonging to the Buddhist tradition of redemptive faiths, and as the only salvation for a society supposedly doomed to collapse. Hubbard's technologies are claimed to free people spiritually (individual Dianetics), producing perfectly functioning clears or highly trained operational thetans, who are supposed to be able to increasingly control their environment. The creation of such a new, omnipotent beings ("homo novis") leads to a dogmatic political schema in which they alone have the right to representation (Group or political Dianetics): Through expansion, through the increasing number of highly trained Scientologists in key positions, through the introduction of Hubbard's discoveries (Administrative technology) to politics, governments and business, Scientology seeks slowly to build a social utopia, a conflict-free and perfectly functioning social order under Scientology. In the service of such social progress, the Scientology agenda seeks to isolate it opponents, and accords civil rights only to Clears. This visionary goal Scientology calls "Clear Deutschland," "Clear Europe" or "Clear Planet."

... the Hubbard program leaves no room for power-sharing, or basing the executive on jurisprudence and law, or recognizing the formation of any opposition. It is irreconcilable with the constitutional order of Germany." Like.liberation 10:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• LL, As you said, what you wrote was almost a direct quote and, what I wrote, 'was' a direct quote. If we include that Cabela is a director (presumably in order to give credible weight to her charges), then we should include both that the organization is a watchdog group, as well as the fact that Clarke is a Catholic. The newspaper chose to quote it, why should we selectively delete it? Let the readers decide whether or not its important, but at least give them all the information in an unbiased way. As for the reasons that some of the allegedly irrelevant material has stayed, I submit that it was not from a consensus, but more from an unwillingness to keep reverting and a desire toward a direction of correcting & improving what was there. Lsi john 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that I included your trivia about the BoE investigating, even though it is misleading and irrelevant. Of course they would investigate. They would investigate almost any charges about any activity. It is their duty to investigate. By taking up space here to say that they are investigating, implies that something wrong has actually occurred. Lots of things get investigated. Some are investigations are based on well founded charges, some are based on petty nonsense. I've never understood prejudice and bigotry and I don't understand it here. Lsi john 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. Lsi john 15:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Lsi john, that this discussion is deteriorating. I have agreed to many changes in this article that I considered fair. I will not respond to charges of bigotry, but only say that other points of view, as objective as yours, exist. You are selectively including the Clarke quote, and leaving out much of the rest of the article, which in fact had greater importance in the reporter's mind, as we can see from the article's structure, which placed other quotes before Clarke's.Like.liberation 10:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to LL

Like.liberation, for the record, I did not specifically call anyone a bigot. I said I do not understand the bigotry that I see going on here. And to make sure that nobody misunderstood, I gave a definition.

I see an obstinate pattern of intolerance and prejudice against the CoS, which is spilling over into an article on YHRI. And that fits the definition of bigotry. I don't know anything about Scientology and perhaps the hatred and intolerance is justified. As far as I can tell from the definition, intolerance and prejudice can be based on truth, and still be bigotry. (Notice your reaction though, when you initially read my words. Notice how an innocent choice of words can invoke emotion.)

A pro-CoS pov editor would write all the good works, and never mention the controversy.

An anti-CoS pov editor would write all the controversy, and never mention any of the good works.

A neutral editor will research and locate both good works and controversy, and include both in proportion to their relevance and significance. A neutral editor might include criticizm against the CoS as it relates to children, but would not go out of their way to include lots of criticizm against CoS in an article that is not specifically about CoS.

Only you know in your own heart whether you are actively seeking to include only the negative and critical material. Only you can answer the rhetorical question: What would this article look like if Like.liberation were the only contributor?

There appears to be a pattern/trend/effort here, to make this article about Scientology. That simply isn't fair to YHRI and isn't NPOV. If YHRI has substantial (or even subtle) undertones of Scientology, and if it has been reliably documented and sourced, then that can (and should) be reported, proportionately. Suspicion, allegations, rumor, innuendo and speculation have no place in encyclopedia articles, IMO. Especially if we are Assuming Good Faith on the part of YHRI! (Are you?)

LL, in fairness to me, I merged two articles. Both had the same material cited in two different ways. In order to get an unbiased and proper citation, I read the material. The entire article boiled down to:

1. 3 girls were concerned.
2. The BoE was investigating
3. A Catholic said he saw no pushing of Scientology.

LL, the ENTIRE article was framed around 3 high school girls. Without them, there would have been no article. I included material from the YHR-Australia article and some from the YHRI article and worded the paragraph fairly. I cited the controversy and I cited a Catholic who saw no pushing of Scientology.

I specifically did not include the title with the word lured for two reasons:

1. It was clearly a sensationalized title to grab reader attention.
2. There was nothing in the article to support the use of the word lured. There is no indication that anyone was 'lured' anywhere and saying so would be prejudicially negative. Just because the word is in the title doesn't mean we 'must' use it here. We are free-thinking and rational NPOV editors, right?

You specificially removed Clarke's credentials. You specifically removed his statement about being Catholic. You misquoted the BoE as saying they would investigate. (Including that statement at all is rather silly, since it's their duty to investigate and you did not report the findings of the investigation). Your wording misrepresents the facts. The implications, and speculation which your citation raises simply do not accurately reflect my reading of that newspaper article.

By their requests, some here are actually asking YHRI to make Scientology their focus. At least that would certainly be the perception, if they had to start every sentence with Hi, Scientology is a major sponsor of YHRI. I'm George, how are you? If YHRI did what some here are suggesting, and plastered Scientology on their foreheads, it would overshadow their message on Human Rights and that isn't fair to YHRI.

Does YHRI have 'ties' to CoS? Certainly. And, they acknowledge the ties in proportion to its merit. Scientology is on their website. Scientology is mentioned on their materials. They aren't hiding it and we need to stop suggesting that they are. The people claiming I didn't know! should also say I didn't bother to look up YHRI! Failure to do even a simple web-search, on the part of a Board of Education, is neglegence on their part, not covert luring on the part of YHRI. If it is established by facts that they are intentionally hiding the connection to CoS, then include me in the group that uses words like lured, until then lets leave speculation out of the articles and stay NPOV.

Lsi john 13:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we let this cool down for a couple days. What do you say?Like.liberation 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's okay by me. I have no emotional involvement or attachment to this article or this subject. If you feel the need to cool off, I can respect and honor that. Lsi john 16:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Haben sie gehort das Deutsche zeitung?

Rather than get lost amidst Lsi John's filibustering (nudge nudge), I'll respond to Like.Liberation's comment above here. He said: "Considering that you don't know what the citations say, you're not in much of a position to judge. Again, I suggest that you ask for a neutral third-party translation. Pending that, I will translate some of the passages, which are in fact much more damning than the term "political extremism." I would submit to our readers that any organization on the right or the left that aims at the overthrow of democratic government as we know it is a form of "political extremism," and deserves to be called by its rightful name." ..To which I would say that is obviously Original Research and your own personal feelings. I do know for a fact that the citation doesn't say "political extremism", because the citation is in German and "political extremism" is an English phrase. Your own translation and interpretation isn't good enough. Print literally what the article says and leave your own interpretation out of it. We can link to a Google or Babelfish translation of the citation if you like, but some other source has to be the translator, not a Wikipedia editor. wikipediatrix 13:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Our job is to synthesize information, and synthesis is not OR. Nor is translation. Nowhere does it say we must quote sources verbatim. I crammed paragraphs like the one above, and references to Scientology's "totalitarian structure and methods," into the words "political extremism," which I hold to be accurate. If you prefer to cite the German government word-for-word, be my guest -- it can only make YHRI and Scientology look worse; but if moderation is your goal, as you have stated, then you'll only be harming your own cause, because the sources cited do not mince words. If you think another translator will serve better, by all means enlist someone who you think is neutral. I don't think I'm off the mark.Like.liberation 14:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Harming my own cause"? What do you think my "cause" is, pray tell?? I have no "cause" other than the articles being fair, accurate, and properly sourced. I think you've confused me with the Scientologists. wikipediatrix 15:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Belgian indictments

Not that I doubt that Scientology will mobilize YHRI on the subject (and the Celebrity Centres, Friends of the United Nations, Artists for Human Rights, Art for Human Rights & Tolerance, International Foundation for Human Rights and Tolerance, Painters For Human Rights, Poets For Human Rights, and on and on), but (so far) does this really have anything to do with this article? AndroidCat 05:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, and I removed it. The Dutch reference says that CofS of Belgium and the Belgian office of CSI are involved. The French (Belgian) reference says it is a "human rights office" instead of CSI but likely it is CSI. Obviously YHRI is not involved. Do I see a trip to Belgium in my future? That would be fun! Anybody want to come and march with me? Wikipediatrix? --Justanother 16:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You can march, I'll go hang out at Callebaut. wikipediatrix 16:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

<chatty thread removed to my user talk. --Justanother 19:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)>

• I'm glad to see you're owning up to your partisanship, Justanother. Maybe you should consider not editing this entry. The German government documented how supposedly independent organizations like YHRI are controlled by Scientology. They address it as a type and are therefore pertinent. The Belgian case explicitly names Sci's Human Rights office, which collaborates closely with and arguably directs YHRI. Why would that not be relevant?Like.liberation 18:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  You should own up to your "partisanship", LL. I have never said anything but that I am a Scientologist. It is OR. You want to make a connection but it is OR. WP:OR. That is not what we do here. --Justanother 18:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Of the many news sources available on this, almost all news outlets I have reviewed say it is the Belgian church and the CSI office, both of which may have dealt with human rights but neither of which are YHRI. Only the Belgian paper says (in French) that it is a "human rights office" and that is probably just because the CSI office was involved with human rights. Not one I saw mentions YHRI. It is WP:OR (Wikipedia:No original research) to include those charges here to tar this group. OR and POV (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). --Justanother 19:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing partisan about reporting the charges leveled against Scientology by much more credible entities -- like Germany and Belgium. The Belgian paper broke the story. Being closer to the sources and working in one of Belgium's two official languages, La Libre Belgique is more authoritative than other press. They referred explicitly to the CS Office of Human Rights because the Belgian prosecutor suspects them to have been involved in one or more crimes -- none of your probably becauses. We know the CSI office is "involved in human rights," they give YHRI marching orders. This is all under the rubric of "Scientology, YHRI And Human Rights In Europe," which is pertinent to YHRI and not at all OR. You like to beat on the rules, but unfortunately you misinterpret them. Like.liberation 19:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrik Schapers

New thread. Who is Andrik Schapers ? Is he related to YHRI ? Does he belong in this article ? Orangerhymes 18:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

Andrik? Not related to YHRI but you can Google him. He always marches in marches. --Justanother 18:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am confused, again. If Andrik Schapers is not related to YHRI, and Wikipediatrix marching or eating chocolate with you and the Church of Scientology in Belgium during the fraud trial against the Church of Scientology in Belgium is not related to YHRI, what relevance does this have, and why did you bring it up on the talk page in the first place? Confused. Orangerhymes 18:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

  Because I was being chatty and that is why I moved the chat to my talk page. --Justanother 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, okay. So in the beginning, you first brought up the tangent digression, but when the tangential thread got too big, you wanted to stop it. Understandable, but again, in the future, please voice such concerns on the talk page, instead of confusing unilateral actions and moving stuff. Orangerhymes 18:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

  Yes, it was too abrupt. I did not realize that you were a fairly new user. Sorry. --Justanother 18:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's okay. I still do not understand the Andrik Schapers reference. Does he have some sort of official position within the Church of Scientology? Still trying to read through all the internet stuff and figure it all out, interesting. Orangerhymes 18:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

1995 Hamburg Senate report, YHRI ...

Discuss. Orangerhymes 18:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

Predates the creation of YHRI. Any mention without a published connection is WP:OR. Not allowed. --Justanother 18:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Right from one of the key POLICIES here, WP:OR:

Content should not be synthesized to advance a position.

--Justanother 18:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OR refers to unpublished material. What we have here are statements published by the German government. They apply to ALL organizations affiliated with Scientology. They are making a general statement, which applies to YHRI as a specific case. Not hard to understand, not OR. Like.liberation 19:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's still a violation of WP:SYNTH. General statements should not be invoked for a specific case, contrary to what you have just said. If the German government said "dogs sure are ugly", we wouldn't make a big deal of that specifically on the Pug article (unless one was determined to put a negative pug-hating spin there). wikipediatrix 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not weaving a grand theory out of two different sources, which is the criteria for SYNTH. The genus of Scientology-affiliated organizations is very small, and the German government has made a statement applying to all of them, a statement that is neither as trivial nor unfounded as yours. Insinuate as much as you like, wikipediatrix, you're still siding with the people who want to mystify our readers and whitewash Scientology, which has been indicted as a "criminal organization." Like.liberation 20:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not siding with anyone but me. The Scientologists and the Scientologist-haters can both go eat lunch, as far as I'm concerned. You can't cry "whitewashing" every time someone else's idea of the article doesn't exactly match with what you want it to say. wikipediatrix 20:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made many concessions, as you know. But there is a consistent pattern in your edits to erase criticism of Scientology in the name of neutrality and balance, however artificial that balance may be. You misunderstand what neutrality means: it does not mean that all parties -- the German government or Scientology, to name two -- are equally credible. They're not. The first first is a democratically elected government that accords its citizens ample rights and is accountable to them; the second is a movement proven to be both totalitarian and fraudulent.Like.liberation 09:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

LL, so a little bit of OR synthesis is OK in your book? Why not just put the sourced criticism where it belongs and leave it there instead of trying to (WP:OR) smear a new group that has done little "wrong" and maybe, just maybe, has done some good (Part 58: User:Justanother reveals shocking news!).

JA, you haven't shown that what I've written is OR or synthesis, so harping on that point is begging the question, not that I expect much more from you -- I know you guys get trained to repeat yourselves.

Sourced criticism belongs here as much as elsewhere. The German government has published statements on all organizations affiliated with Scientology, based on Scientology's internal documents. YHRI is one such organization, and we have well-sourced, published evidence that it operates in such a manner. It doesn't matter that YHRI was founded after the German government statement. Scientology didn't change in the mean time, nor did the members who happen to run YHRI even as they are involved in other organizations that predate the German statement (like CCRI). We have no evidence that YHRI is any different, and much that indicates it is the same as any other Scientology-affiliated organization.

Given the fraudulent history of Scientology and its front groups, we have an obligation to inform our readers that YHRI may not be what it claims. True to form, YHRI and the Office of Human Rights are doing the same things that Scientology's groups have always done -- fooling people and promoting Scientology -- and the press is picking it up.

The good YHRI claims to have done is included in this entry. Criticism that pertains directly to YHRI should be, too. Like.liberation 09:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• To clarify, I think it was indicted as a "fraudulent organization", and later a spokesperson for the prosecutor said it was a "criminal organization." Orangerhymes 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

What's your source? La Libre Belgique used the very words "criminal organization" in the list of charges. It wasn't just in the quote from Pellen, I think. Have you read the court documents? Are they available?Like.liberation 09:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Actually, there has been a lot of press lately about Scientology and Whitewashing: Scientlogy and Whitewashing in the news. I guess Scientology just likes to "whitewash". No doubt that is what they are currently scrambling to do with the prosecution for fraud and being a criminal organization, but that will be tougher if Mike Rinder is really gone for good. Orangerhymes 20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC).
    • Actually, a few pretty lame Scientology examples are lumped in with a bunch of other juicier stuff in those Wikiscanner reports. Molehill. Mountain. SSDD --Justanother 20:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Actually, I wonder just how much more we don't know that is not in the press. Perhaps Scientology has its own minions editing Wikipedia to this day, perhaps under some organized department of some kind. Who knows? Orangerhymes 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

Brussels

What does this "Scientology meeting" to do with YHRI, were members of them present and if so, were they attending in their official capacity?

In Brussels last year, Julie Barreau, a reporter for Le Soir magazine, recorded the speaker of a Scientology meeting as saying: "We must take control of Belgium. Their intentions are the same as the Nazis. We have to educate the forces of the fourth Reich about human rights." The reporter added that Scientologists considered any government that did not recognize Scientology as a religion to be the same as the Nazis, thus the usage of the term "fourth Reich." [46]

This comes across as mere smear, which I guess is the intent of the editor who put it in. Shutterbug 15:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job, a lot of that is POV-pushing. I restored the Caberta one though - Verschleierungsstrategie or Verschleierungstaktik, i.e. "masking stategy" or "masking tactics". Whether right or wrong, that is the claim she made in the interview. --Justanother 16:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, what she says in this interview is that Scientology is using "masking tactics" (referring to anti-drug campaigns), what the article said is that YHRI would mask its connection to the Church. You see that this is not the same? Shutterbug 17:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

She is specifically referring to Scn social betterment programs and calling them a "masking strategy" to impress and recruit the young and "gutgläubige" (good-hearted? idealistic?). She names YHRI as one example of that. If you think that it needs to be phrased a bit differently then rephrase it. --Justanother 17:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"gutgläubige" means "trustful" (people). She names about YHRI, "Drug marshals" (whatever that is, maybe drug-free marshals) and Scientology Volunteers (Volunteer Ministers) as examples how the Church of Scientology creates a public image of being a charitable group but calls these worldwide actions a "masking strategy" and not what Scientology is, in her view. This actions would also be targeted to address young and trustful people and make them members of Scientology. Now, the entry said: Ursula Caberta, the Commissioner for the Scientology Task Force of the Hamburg Interior Authority, a Scientology watchdog group, stated the YHRI is one of a number of Scientology-linked groups that mask their connection to the church and seek to attract and recruit the young.. Not the same. Could be summarized as "Ursula Caberta from the Hamburg Youth Authority states that she believes that YHRI is masking what Scientology is.". Shutterbug 18:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a better translation of Gutgläubige would be True believers.--Fahrenheit451 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug/COFS, you've been blocked for sockpuppeting on these pages before. Your claims to impartial judgment ring false, your accusations of smear are laughable, and you have no business making massive deletions. If you think something's wrong, get a neutral third party to weigh the article. Until then, the material stays. Like.liberation 16:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Like.liberation, stop violating WP:NPA, you are steering this discussion back to a retarded state. Stop it, or otherwise you will be blocked. Shutterbug 17:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Noting your history of deceit on this page will serve as a warning to newcomers, who might otherwise take your arguments in good faith. It was not, however, a personal attack -- just a reporting of fact. You sock-puppeted, and now you're back, and the irony of your taking the moral high ground deserves notice.

Well, you continuous insult will not help you much. I never sock-puppeted and I have never gone away. As for your incompetent and slanted translation down there, I'll just stick to what I said earlier. Shutterbug 08:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You claim that Ursula Caberta did not say that "YHRI is one of a number of Scientology-linked groups that mask their connection to the church and seek to attract and recruit the young." Here, as in other places, you are wrong. The article in Die Welt runs as follows:

"WELT.de: All that's water under the bridge, the Scientologists say. Now they claim to be a charitable civil organization working for the welfare of the city and the province.

Caberta: That's precisely the strategy of dissimulation (Verschleierungsstrategie). Out in front, they put YHRI or "Drug Marshalls" fighting against drugs. Wherever a disaster shakes the world, whether it's 9-11 or Hurricane Katrina, all these Scientologist volunteers in yellow T-shirts pop up to create a media event for their organization. It has very little to do with helping out. In reality they want to influence and recruit young and trusting people. But dissimulating tactics also means hiding the real face of the organization from outside. Sadly, this comes up a lot." Like.liberation 08:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Too much Germany

Germany hates Scientology, yes, yes, anyone who wants to know that knows it already. Caberta has lots of criticisms of it, yes, yes, but Germany is only one country on a planet full of countries, and Germany's opinion of Scientology in the big picture doesn't really deserve such an anal-retentive "And then Caberta said this, and then she said this, and then some German court gave this opinion", blah blah blah. Giving so much space to Germany's opinion of Scientology is as Undue Weight as giving free rein to Mia Farrow's opinion of Woody Allen in his article. The anti-Scn crowd and the pro-Scn crowd are both too obsessed with Scientology to be able to see the forest for the trees anymore. wikipediatrix 19:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Germany happens to be the third-largest economy in the world, and the largest democracy in the the EU -- but Germany is not the issue. The issue is evidence and ideas. You think there's too much Germany because you don't like the evidence and ideas they present, but that doesn't make what they say any less valid. And no, not everybody is familiar with what they have to say. In fact, much of our English-speaking readership is ignorant of what the German government has said.

Germany does not "hate" Scientology. Specific German people and institutions have accused Scientology and YHRI of specific acts, and rather than lose ourselves in useless generalizations, we can sum them up here, and readers can judge from the evidence. You're trying to position yourself in the middle, but you're consistently erasing well-sourced, relevant information, and making this page less informative. Our job is to inform and explain. Leaving out the German stance on YHRI would be like writing about George W. Bush without talking about the Iraq war. It's the elephant in the room. Like.liberation 16:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Or talking about Germany without mentioning past and new Nazis and their discrimination machine. It's the elephant in the room. Shutterbug 17:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug, the Nazi accusation is so old, and so trite, I don't know why you even bother. But if you are going to start slinging epithets, back it up with facts. Otherwise, you will be guilty of your favorite word: smear. Nazis, real and figurative, are no where more marginalized or farther from power than in Germany. Meanwhile, we have a great deal of evidence that Scientology has tried to infiltrate and plans to overthrow numerous democratic regimes. The Belgians, Germans and French have all charged Scientology with attempting to infiltrate their governments.

Let’s address your use of TW to automatically revert my changes and automatically tack on charges of vandalism. Like most of your accusations, this one is unfounded. Here is Wikipedia’s definition:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of jokes or nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism—it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

Now, my changes are distinct from what Wikipedia cites as vandalism, as is my intention. I am trying to improve this entry. You are relying on a bot to revert without discussion. I’m going to ask you to stop, and if you don’t, I’m going to report you. Like.liberation 09:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As you correctly point out,

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.. That is what you are doing. You are adding material that is not related to the subject of the article. It might be related to an article about Scientology in Belgium, France or whereever but this here is about YHRI. They are not mentioned in your references, they did not even exist at the time your references were created or they are doing the exact opposite of what your references say. For me this is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" as you are trying to include sections in this article which have nothing to do with YHRI or - even if I consider good faith here - are WP:OR. There is no real sense in discussing this again, because - look at this talk page - this has been determined over and over in the past months. Your edits are solely POV pushing and not acceptable. Stop it. Shutterbug 16:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree with you on this issue. There's too much general criticism of Scientology here, and not all of it's connected in any meaningful way with YHRI. But if Scientology's Office of Human Rights directs YHRI's activities, then the Belgium issues do need to be referenced here.

I also think you're wrong about vandalism. You two can have an honest disagreement over what constitutes valid criticism in this document without baseless accusations against each other. Frankly, I think part of the knee-jerk reactions you see in response to your edits of Scientology-related documents is because of aggressive postures like that. It's off-putting for the vast majority of editors.

Again, I think you're basically right in this issue, but you would definitely do well to explain your actions more fully, and in a less confrontational manner. --GoodDamon 17:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that that's true of Scientology in general, but there's a lot of duplication of more fully fleshed-out details about Germany and Scientology in other articles. Putting it all here, where YHRI itself isn't really a factor, makes for a more confusing and conflicted read for anyone working their way through the large body of Scientology-related articles. --GoodDamon 17:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

GoodDamon, As you can see, YHRI is at the center of the conflict between Scientology and EU nations. Scientology is using YHRI as a tool to promote itself, and European governments are questioning both the intent of YHRI and Scientology’s performance in human rights.

Scientology's Office of Human Rights, which directs YHRI, was named in the Belgian indictments, and the long list of charges included fraud. Similar charges have been leveled at YHRI in other countries and contexts. As the Hamburg Senate documents show, Scientology instituted the official policy of using supposedly distinct organizations to promote itself before YHRI was created. (Some say that means YHRI could be an exception to the policy, but organizations created after those Scientology statements are all the more likely to fall under that order.)

Scientology is inviting this discussion here by claiming to be for human rights. YHRI is the chief vehicle for its supposed human rights efforts. Repeating information scattered through other articles is not necessarily confusing, and can contribute to a more global view without demanding that readers click around. Like.liberation 09:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

All that may be accurate, but without making it clear in the article it's still confusing. For instance, in the section titled "Belgian criminal charges," not a single mention of the relationship between the Office of Human Rights and YHRI is there, so it looks like a complete non-sequitor. All the information on this page should connect to YHRI in some way that's obvious to the reader, and right now that's not the case. To be blunt, right now it just looks like a critical discussion of Scientology instead of an encyclopedic entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDamon (talk • contribs) 14:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Like.liberation, even in good faith this is all WP:OR, though - knowing your edits from day 1 - for me this is your usual German propaganda, thus actually WP:vandalism. I understand that it is hard to compromise and look at different viewpoints in your position but you are messing up an encyclopedia on the way and that is not acceptable. Take out your text and put it where it belongs or quit editing this article. Shutterbug 18:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

GoodDamon, I can't blame you if you haven't read the interminable discussion above. If you have, though, then you probably noticed some patterns in what Shutterbug/COFS says and does. S/he first uses specious arguments trying to exclude sources critical of YHRI. As those arguments are lost, point by point (the most recent case concerned the content of the Caberta quote), Shutterbug/COFS drops them and moves on to other sophistries. I probably don't have to tell you that this amounts to a waste of time -- thus the length of this page -- and demonstrates a grand indifference to fact and reasoning.

Secondly, Shutterbug/COFS brandishes the initials of Wikipedia rules s/he understands poorly in an attempt to disqualify edits (for example, "vandalism" or WP:PA), which, aside from the bullying impression it gives, again neglects the substance of the discussion.

When words fail, Shutterbug/COFS resorts to force and sock puppetry, making massive deletions and operating under at least two usernames to create a false sense of consensus. It's only logical, I suppose, that Shutterbug/COFS would use the very tactics Scientology is accused of -- operating under different guises -- to defend it. This is all in evidence above if you care to read it. Shutterbug/COFS has acted in a manner that I hope will give you pause before you put too much stock in what s/he says.

Now, an administrator has ended our stupid edit war, and his arbitrary timing will leave the article as Shutterbug/COFS wishes until the 26th. At that point, it should be amended to include several of the absent paragraphs.

I will concede that the Hamburg Senate report may not be essential here. But the paragraphs citing the French human rights report, the Belgian quote on human rights, and the Belgian criminal charges of the Office of Human Rights are all directly relevant to YHRI's activities in Europe. The paragraph on Germany's opinion that Scientology is a commercial organization is useful for background, and brief enough to merit inclusion.

You're right to point out how confusing this article can seem. Much of that is the result of editing at cross purposes and reaching compromises that leave points undeveloped and satisfy no one.

Shutterbug/COFS, only by assuming my intent can you justify calling my edits vandalism, and that is the very OR you like to accuse people of.

You call some of the deleted paragraphs German propaganda. I have no interest in spreading false information to harm Scientology. But I am interested in publishing well-documented evidence here, regardless of whether it harms or hurts YHRI.

The Germans have internal Scientology documents that have shown how the organization has sought to take advantage of recruits and infiltrate the German government. That evidence was sufficient for Scientology to be considered a danger to the German constitution -- it has also prompted German lawmakers and appointed officials to call YHRI into question. Your name-calling does not alter that, or make it less wiki-worthy. Like.liberation 15:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already had arguments -- and a cease-fire -- with Shutterbug. You make valid points, but... When I see your edit of this article, I can't help but notice a heavy emphasis on criticism of Scientology and the Church of Scientology wherein YHRI isn't mentioned. Your additions stand out, because without tying directly into YHRI it goes from being a Wikipedia article to a polemic (Shutterbug, on the other hand, tends towards apologia, but that's another issue). The Germany and Belgium points certainly belong in articles on Wikipedia, but I would look at each issue carefully to see if it really belongs in so specific an article as this one. And if it does, then make sure you make clear exactly how YHRI fits in. --GoodDamon 16:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of my edits on this entry are critical of YHRI, and most of Shutterbug/COFS's are in praise of it -- that's clear. For the record, when Shutterbug/COFS was blocked, I formatted the links s/he dumped on the page, rather than deleting them, although they are of questionable worth. But while I can tolerate the presence of implied praise in the entry, Shutterbug/COFS cannot tolerate implied criticism.

Given the partisan affiliation of YHRI, this entry will always be divided into facts neutral to it, facts that make it look good, and facts that reflect criticism of it. No one disputes the factual nature of the paragraphs I want to keep here. In addition to being merely factual, they provide perspective and depth to what would otherwise be a flat, not to say misleading view, of YHRI. Clearly, there is a fine line between perspective and gross opinion, and Shutterbug/COFS and I will probably never agree where it is drawn, thus the endless argument. Still, all I ask is that facts supporting this critical perspective be granted their due place in this entry.

The Belgian criminal charges are a case in point: if party A is staffed and given marching orders by party B, and party B is accused of fraud and extortion, those facts are relevant to an entry on party A. Scientology's Office of Human Rights was accused of such acts by a Belgian prosecutor, it also directs YHRI. We don't need to write the great American novel about it, but a paragraph would do.

If you don't think the paragraphs in question are appropriate here, I would be interested to know where you think they belong.Like.liberation 11:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(Resetting indent. This is in response to [User:Like.liberation|Like.liberation].) Thank you for laying all that out. I would put the paragraphs in the appropriate articles, such as the page already devoted to Scientology in Belgium. Again, I'm not ruling out leaving the paragraphs here, as long as how they relate to YHRI is explicitly laid out, but without that context it looks like unnecessary duplication of information for the sole purpose of criticizing Scientology. And worse, it's bad form for an encyclopedia, because it doesn't look like the paragraphs you've inserted relate directly to the subject of the article. Either relate them, or they should go. --GoodDamon 16:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug's name isn't Shutterbug/COFS, and I would suggest that "Like.liberation" start calling her by her proper username immediately. It's disruptive and counter-productive. wikipediatrix 20:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected

For a week as a result of edit warring. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In the news

• Hendry, Andrew (2008-03-28). "PC World - Scientology video channel's credibility in question". PC World. Retrieved 2008-03-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

AndroidCat (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Address = mail drop box ?

[22], not sure if this has been reported on in independent reliable secondary sources, but it would be most interesting, if so. Cirt (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Youth for Human Rights International/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*24 citations, no images at present. Smee 09:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 09:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

School unaware of link to Scientologists

• Steffenhagen, Janet (June 11, 2008). "School unaware of link to Scientologists: A 'lesson learned' when group was 'not as forthcoming as they needed to be,' principal says". The Vancouver Sun. www.canada.com. Retrieved 2008-06-11. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Source for usage in this article. Cirt (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Steffenhagen, Janet (June 11, 2008). "Scientologists invited to school assembly". Vancouver Sun blogs. The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved 2008-06-11. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Another about same issue, by same author as above. Cirt (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

More attempted CO$ propaganda here http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/22/2749868.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.50.158 (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of mentions of Scientology

There have been several reverts attempting to remove reliably sourced information that indicates that YHRI is closely connected to the Church of Scientology (even if not formally so), including sources from the Church itself, as well as removing well-cited examples of criticisms of the organization. In my opinion, these removals seem to fall under WP:CENSOR and prevent a neutral discussion of the facts. I'm looking to develop consensus so would there any reasons for removing the information? RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I for one found the qualifier "Scientology's website states that...." to be distracting and irrelevant in the opening paragraph. There is a citation at the end of that sentence; anyone who likes can click on that and see where the claim came from, so why add the qualifier? In general the opening section of this article seems to have overcompensated for the removal attempts you reference with redundant and superfluous qualifiers ("According to the Church of Scientology...") ("Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard's writings" instead of just "L. Ron Hubbard's writings".) My reaction on reading the opening section was, "Wow, some editor really wants to make sure I know that Scientology is involved here."

Additionally, the third paragraph, describing the founding of the YHRI, seems to depart from a NPOV to the extent that it casts implicit doubt on the trustworthiness of the information source by carefully avoiding stating anything about the organization's founding as unadorned fact. The extra quotation marks in particular convey this impression; from modern journalistic style I actually expected to see a conflicting claim of the YHRI founding story immediately following.

As far as censorship goes, since the Scientology website pretty explicitly describes the link between YHRI and the Church, I can't see any reason why the connection shouldn't be mentioned. I think the main concern here should just be the proper tone of presentation—a little more neutral, and perhaps mentioning some of the positive views (e.g. https://www.scientology.org/how-we-help/human-rights/program-results.html) to balance the extensive criticism section. 75.83.255.180 (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Youth for Human Rights International. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813194020/http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html to http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Youth for Human Rights International. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060216093402/http://www.youthforhumanrights.org:80/index.htm to http://www.youthforhumanrights.org/index.htm

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) 07:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)