Talk:Citizens Commission on Human Rights/Archive 1

message: Most of this article is uncited.  I know myself that at least this statement which appears in the article is unciwteable, it could never be verified because C.C.H.R.'s stance on it is different that it says. "Scientology holds that all illnesses, both physical and mental, are caused by "engrams" of negative energy in a person's "thetan", and that mental health professionals in fact place new "engrams" in their patients, covering up old problems with new ones."  Is anyone watching this page, anyone wish to discuss? Terryeo 19:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientology holds that all illnesses, both physical and mental, are caused by "engrams" of negative energy in a person's "thetan", and that mental health professionals in fact place new "engrams" in their patients, covering up old problems with new ones.  Terryeo 08:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited, Unverified and Unverifiable Statements 

message: :One must also consider the date in which L. Ron Hubbard wrote this, and thus the possiblity for changes to have arrisen. Thus, CCHR does not accuse all psychiatrists of being criminals.
When was the statement quoted found on CCHR's web site?  Today, April 10, 2005.  If they're no longer standing by it, they should no longer be publishing it.
:PLEASE DONT ADD COMMENTS BASED OFF OF "OUTSIDE" INFORMATION UNSUPPORTED BY CREDIBLE SOURCES
:This page is meant to inform, not to suggest to people who is right and who is wrong
:with terms such as "accused" and "supposed" without citing [credible] sources. Thank you.
The sources are credible, except to Scientologists, who are required to believe that all critics of Scientology must be criminals, who must therefore not be credible sources.  Remember that these are documents which were uncovered during the FBI investigation into Operation Snow White.  Was it critics on the Web who determined that key leaders in Scientology, right up to MSH herself, had committed the largest incident of domestic espionage in the history of the US?  No, it was the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  Don't make us laugh by saying it's Scientology's critics who have the credibility problem. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Antaeus Feldspar, you say that a Scientologist is both unable to judge whether a source of information is credible or not, and that every Scientologist is "required" to believe something.  May I ask you, what exactly is this vast, indescribable power whose manifestation causes belief?  Because I'll tell you or anyone, no one can make you or me or John Doe believe anything he doesn't wish to believe.  But according to you all Scientologists are "Forced!" to believe a certain thing.  That is plain wrong.  You are just plain wrong about that.  I begin to understand better why you suspect everyone's "good faith" but good faith doesn't matter as much as its manifestation.  Which is, can a person think clearly?  Scientology encourages a person to think for themselves, I would say.  That's even the European slogan which has proved a successful means of Scientology's attracting people.  No wonder you State the opposite ! That's just not true Antaeus. Wikipedia:NPOV defines our work here.  After a subject is introduced (and it really has to be introduced without the carping and criticism else it is not a subject.)  Then contrversial (cited) points of view can be introduced which gives a neutral person an opportunity to judge for themselves.  It is Wiki policy to cite sources.  When you don't, your posts are subject to removal to the discussion page until they are cited.  At which time they can be moved, once again, to the article.  That's the policy folks.  Why, oh why, don't critics cheefully follow it and carp and complain at every enforcement? :) Terryeo 08:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, I'm trying to find something in all the above which translates to more than "you claim one thing, but Scientology claims the opposite!  Therefore, you've been proven wrong, because it couldn't be Scientology that's wrong!"  Far from being an effective rebuttal, this rather proves my point. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: huh?  No, no.  Any good piece of verifiable information should be included.  We can just follow Wiki Policy and Guidelines and make good articles.  If we run into a situation that each side says exactly opposite things, we can put them right butt up against each other, let the reader deceide. Terryeo 20:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consequences of quoting and credibility 

message: Okay, enough is enough.  After a 24-hour block, 192.104.181.229 repeatedly made the same unaccepted edits to this article.  A two-day protection on the page gave no comments at all on the talk page.  So, 192.104.181.229 is now blocked for seven days.  --Modemac 16:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  192.104.181.229 7-day block 

message: I don't think this article is neutral. ~~~~ 08:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's not neutral about it? --Carnildo 19:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias 

message: Terryeo, why should we trust information about these subjects from someone who can't even properly SPELL them? Seriously, this isn't just taking a cheap shot: bad writing is bad editing. Your edits are continually filled with atrocious spelling and grammar. This, combined with the sheer number of edits you make, give the reader the impression that you aren't putting much thought and effort into these haphazard darts you're hurriedly throwing. wikipediatrix 22:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Terryeo 22:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My question wasn't a rhetorical one. wikipediatrix 22:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ritlin" and "Vitimin" 

message: You people really don't get it at all.  ChrisO, Feldspar and Wikipediatrix, you people just don't get it.  CCHR has one single purpose in mind.  CCHR was created by an organization which has proven itself to be legally vital and effective.  Guess what its purpose is? .... yet you people insist on keeping the page chock full of what you hold up as failures of CCHR.  Does this make me think your editing is POV and unbalanced?  ohhhh, well, maybe a little bit.  Out of many court cases you find a small handful of "failures" and of course you insist those are in the article.  You instantly revert any perfectly valid information I put in the article, information about a few of CCHR's successes.  And by Success, I mean events which have significantly changed how government treats psychiatry and psychiatry's scam of raping patients and even murdering patients.  For balance, both wins and loses, both popularity and citations from leading citizens and venom from psychiatrists would be appropriate to the article.  But what do you people do?  You tred along a single, narrow line.  HEH.  I gotta laugh. Terryeo 06:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I gotta laugh because you honestly believe that numerous psychiatrists are sexually abusing their clients all the time, LOL. $cientologist, right? 76.30.72.197 (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I gotta laugh 

message: WP:V, if it isn't published to the public, it is not to be included in Wikipedia, we are not a rag expose' newspaper.  Here is the paragraph I cut for discussion and verification. "In one example, a leaked document outlining a training course for the job of President of the Church of Scientology International requires the trainee to demonstrate "HOW A PR CAMPAIGN ON EXPOSING THE PSYCHIATRIC DRUGGING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN IN A COMMUNITY OR COUNTRY WOULD BUILD PRO AREA CONTROL FOR THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY" . An internal training course from the Office of Special Affairs reportedly requires the trainee to undertake exercises such as "writ[ing] a campaign that you can actually execute from your hat [job] to help cut off the funding to psychiatrists in your area." 
" and WP:V simply doesn't let any editor cite any document in any article which is not published to the public. Terryeo 07:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "leaked docuemnt 

message: The CCHR logo can be found on the Church of Scientology's document found at Narconon's Place on the Scientology Org Board (second scan, down the page, just above Narconon's logo.) Is it something of interest? If yes we could try to find a clean scan and highlight the CCHR logo to show that according to the Church of Scientology's own document, the CCHR is seen as part of a  "solution to creating a cleared civilization" (their words), along other organizations such as Narconon, etc. Raymond Hill 20:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't it occur to you guys that to "prove" that CCHR intends to "take out" psychiatry, all you have to do is link to the CCHR's website?  I mean it is so obvious.  What is this infatuation you guys have with mailers and things which no one can read, which only appear on Lisa mcPherson type websites, etc. etc.  The point is so obvious that to use undisclosed, unavailable, impossible to find, long ago mailed out and thrown away "mailers" makes the arguement weak and sound like it is created by hidden school boys fantasy. Terryeo 22:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCHR logo 

message: The subsection entitled Chelmsford Hospital and "sleep therapy" talks around the subject, but doesn't actually say what the whole thing is all about. wikipediatrix 16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  The link spells out some of the lurid details (rape while asleep, etc). Terryeo 02:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chelmsford Hospital and "sleep therapy" 

message: the CCHR site presents this link which it apparently made some efforts toward bringing about.  Apparently the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision about the legality of Arizona's law in regard to psychiatric testimony. Terryeo 02:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link of interest on the CCHR site 

message: An external link cannot use language such as " list of articles on the cult of Scientology & CCHR." That is pure POV pushing. Please do not revert that language back into the ELs. BabyDweezil 22:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links are not for POV pushing 

message: What does this mean? "Prominent anti-psychiatry advocate Dr. Peter Breggin worked with the group up until 1974. Breggin dissociated himself from the organization in 1994,"?  I'm guessing he started working with them in 1974 and stopped in 1994, however this is not clear from the sentence.  Steve Dufour 04:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it. --Justanother 05:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Steve Dufour 06:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning please 

message: At least, to hear the CCHR say it. Source seems reliable enough, and this sort of insanity is hardly unprecedented, but I'd rather someone more knowledgeable than I make this addition, in the proper context and with better cites.85.64.39.111 23:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already in the article Psychiatry: An Industry of Death which is linked from this article :-)  --Tilman 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychiatry causes Nazis, terrorists 

message: The link to the story about a picket at Riverside does not work. ChrisO's edit did not fix it. When you click on the link you get a 404 message. Also someone disabled my link to 'Inside 60 minutes', so I fixed it.S. M. Sullivan 08:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Riverside 

message: Again, this is not likely to make it into the article as it's completely WP:OR, but I'm curious about something your quote about caffeine and code reminded me of. What is CCHR's stance on coffee and cigarettes? Both are addictive substances (one more than the other) and both are mildly mind-altering. --GoodDamon 21:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for answering my question, Mr. Hawkins. By the way, note how I used a colon at the beginning of this paragraph. You can use that markup to indent your paragraph some, allowing it to become obvious which text you're responding to. It's a very handy mechanism. --GoodDamon 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: GoodDamon: Thanks for the tip! --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for Mr. Hawkins 

message: I was just perusing Wikileaks, and found these leaked CCHR emails. I don't think they themselves are usable in this document, but there's about to be a rush of news from reliable sources about CCHR and Scientology because of this. --GoodDamon 16:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting me know.  Let me know if there's anything you need from me. --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome, but to be honest I was letting everyone who edits here know, which includes a lot of different editors with an interest in CCHR and Scientology. --GoodDamon 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but... huh? I just pointed out their existence. I made no statement as to their content other than that they will probably generate news about CCHR and Scientology. I intentionally left any opinion I might have about their contents out, as I strive for neutrality per WP:NPOV. I just thought it would be nice to let regulars here have a little advance notice about them. --GoodDamon 15:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads up - Internal CCHR emails leaked on Wikileaks 

message: The PDF link in reference #13 has been updated.  It is now:
http://www.cchr.org/media/pdfs/White_Paper_-_Information_Concerning_Antidepressants_2007.pdf
--Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and replaced it. Ideally, we should find a link to a news article about that report, and use the news article instead. --GoodDamon 17:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the heads-up. I replaced it again. I will likely turn it into an external link instead of a reference soon, if no reliable source can be found to replace it. --GoodDamon 20:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  updated PDF link, ref [13] 

message: I find very few mentions in this article reguarding critics of the CCHR. It seems to me that this article leans in a very positive standpoint towards an organization that is a known front group to funnel those with mental illness away from peer-reviewed psychiatric and psychological treatment and into Scientology funded, unreviewed and sometimes unhealthy treatment methods. This seems like a very biased article according to WP:POV. 198.254.16.200 (talk)chanceemtiv
:There's another article on this subject, Scientology and psychiatry. As far as I know the church doesn't have facilities to treat psychoses. —Cesar Tort 15:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of critics of the CCHR? 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "gumbel" :
** Andrew Gumbel, "Scientology vs. Science," Los Angeles City Beat, January 12, 2006
** 
DumZiBoT (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: This: 
Kendra Wiseman, the daughter of Bruce Wiseman, the president of the U.S. CCHR, maintains that:
“ 	Members of CCHR put down and ridiculed non-Scientology anti-psych groups as "crazy" [...] One day, I ran across another group of people who considered themselves psych-survivors. Their message was almost identical to ours, and they'd really experienced psych-abuse first hand. I was so excited, I ran and told my senior about it. To my surprise, she already knew about them, but discounted them as "people we didn't want to have anything to do with."[37]
makes no sense. Sourced with an anti-scientology forum and probably only in this article because it is anti-scientology in some way. I'll leave the link to the EL section. TaborG (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kendra Wiseman 

message: * "One Man Britain Can Do Without", The People, March 20, 1966. 
Does anyone know anything about the history of this publication, and what became of it? ←Spidern→ 21:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This paper is still existant in the UK, although it's status has declined over the years and is now a minor tabloid. There is a (rather sparse) entry here on wikipedia [The_People]. My understanding, although I don't have any sources to hand I'm afraid, is that the original faily 'The People' folded and the sunday edition 'Sunday People' continued. This publication then changed its name to 'The People'. I may be substantially incorrect on these historical points, so if someone more learned is able to correct me then do go ahead... SupernautRemix (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The People" 

message: It's so very obvious that this article places emphasis on the support of this group by Scientologists in an attempt to discredit the organization. CCHR may have a loose affiliation with Scientology, but it does not justify the disproportionate focus given to this link. It's actually quite disgusting to see how blatantly you people try to present CCHR in a negative light. Of course, all my reasonable edits will be deleted on some bullshit grounds. Whatever.
Oh and someone back in 2008 completely agreed with me on this issue as well. Something needs to be done about this article, it's extremely biased and such a blatant attempt at putting a POV spin on the topic. Prove me wrong.
"---This entry is written with bias by someone who is clearly not educated about psychology, the cause and effect nature of the mind, or context (especially cultural context.). The aims of this entry are made to discredit this organization by associating it directly with scientology (a belief system created by a sci fi author) as opposed to bringing up the several phd theorists and psychologists who agree with the CCHR view. There is plenty of evidence to the claims CCHR makes about psychiatry outside of a scientology association, this entry should be flagged for review by experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.64.76  (talk  • contribs) 01:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathetic 

message: Stated as per arbitration policy above. I am *not* a member of CCHR or Scientology but I am a campaigner in the area of Psychiatric human rights ( http://mindfreedom.org.uk ). I did consider this before editing but decided to go ahead to test my neutrality skills.DJ Barney (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Possible Conflict of Interest 

message: "The CCHR continues to be entirely controlled by and subject to policy directives issued from the Church of Scientology", there is no citation for this statement and no data can be found to support this on the CCHR website. The Church of Scientology co-founded the organization with Thomas Szasz, but there is no evidence that the Church itself entirely directs CCHR policy.
TheGreatEditorial (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair point. Frankly I am not very happy with the quality of this article, and I propose to undertake a comprehensive review and rewrite of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea, that would be most appreciated and helpful for the project! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology and the CCHR 

message: Considering the huge amount of claims presented by CCHR in their videos, there seems to be no dispute about any of them. That's interesting - considering everything else in this article seems to be digging into the closet
for dirt on the people behind the videos. 67.184.122.108 (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article reads like a smear campaign against CCHR - No dispute over content of CCHRs claims or presentation. 

message: this web page says that Breggin has not had anything to do with the CCHR since 1974. it implies that he had knowingly worked with a Church of Scientology front group called the Prozac Survivors Support Group, Inc., when he has said otherwise. the article had implied a close and recent collaboration rather than a long-ago and perhaps accidental one. My source for the above information — Preceding unsigned comment added by *Ria777* (talk • contribs) 07:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This was brought up 6 years ago now, but some other people may have the same complaint. I edited the article yesterday to clarify Breggin's position (and give a reference for the statements). In short, he does appear to have knowingly worked with CCHR for 2 years, being initially unaware of scientology and related projects, but steadily growing opposed to them as he learnt more. Wikiditm (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breggin 

message: I was looking to update the bit about Jan Eastgate, but cannot find any sources. She was due to face trial in June. Anyone know the outcome of this? Is it still on-going? Did it not happen? I could update the page saying her trial has began, with a link to a source from May saying she would go on trial in June, but that seems very clumsy. Any ideas? Wikiditm (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: She was released on bail. The trial is not due until next year. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jan Eastgate legal situation 

message: Shouldn't Wikipedia discuss The Marketing of Madness: Are We All Insane?? Because the page is at risk of being deleted...-Tesseract2(talk) 04:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fine with it being deleted. CCHR have made a good handful of documentaries now, all of which espouse the same view, which is summarised well enough in this article. Might be worth adding a list of the documentaries they've made, but I wouldn't have thought a separate page on each one is necessary - you wouldn't do that for material produced by any other advocacy group.Wikiditm (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The marketing of madness 

message: Freedom magazine is apparently blacklisted by Wikipedia, so I could not add this source which describes in detail the vast psychiatric conspiracy, entitled "The Terror Doctors". I can't even put the link here. Speaking of which, does anyone know which event it was that Miscavige revealed this conspiracy, claiming (quite erroneously) that al-Qaeda is a direct descendant of the medieval Assassins who were reputed to use hashish to create suicidal martyrs and all that? I believe it was the New Year's Event, but not sure. If we can find a source for this, it would be great because the claims made by the church regarding the Assassins were disproven a long, long time ago, considering the idea of Muslim soldiers martyred in battle would ascend to heaven with 72 virgins for eternity was a fabrication invented by the Crusaders. Considering that not a single reliable source in Islam mentions any of this, and it's today only parroted by anti-Muslim activists, this would be good to detail in the article, preferably with reliable rebuttals. Laval (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 conspiracy 

message: This page reads likde a promo piece practically taken straight from the literature of the CCHR itself.  The majority view of RS on the CCHR is not to be found fully expressed on this page anywhere.  I propose that in order for this page to be restored to compliance with WP:Due and WP:Undue, that this page be reverted back to an earlier edition/ version when it was in compliance with these two policies.
Scott P. (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is in violation of WP:Due/ Undue policy 

message: Substituted at 14:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: It says:
:"An example used in the movie is the assertion that psychiatrists seek to label typical shyness as a "social anxiety disorder".
:However, patients are diagnosed with a social anxiety disorder only at debilitating levels, where there is an "intense fear in social situations".[57] Unlike a shy individual, a person diagnosed with social anxiety disorder is likely to suffer from symptoms such as nausea, stammering, and panic attacks."
Patients should be diagnosed with a social anxiety disorder only at debilitating levels, but according to the documentary, they are not. Patients that should be diagnosed with social anxiety disorder should be likely to suffer from symptoms such as nausea stammering and panic attacks, but according to the documentary, they are not.
As I see it, whoever wrote that part of the article, is not sourcing his actual claim that contradicts the documentary from anywhere. Stating what the diagnostics criteria should be seems to contradict a claim by the documentary that the criteria is not followed, whereas in fact it does not. That is an opinion piece and editorial debating, not content for an encyclopedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:28:FA:0:0:0:2600 (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketing of Madness section ends in an opinion statement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Citizens Commission on Human Rights. 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/20110615190228/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=9b10ee7c-3c02-4092-8c2b-3fd45be37b85&k=0 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=9b10ee7c-3c02-4092-8c2b-3fd45be37b85&k=0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070922111905/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt.nsf/V3Key/LA19911202019 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA19911202019
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001034547/http://drclaudiaheals.com/DrClaudiaHeals/About_Us.html to http://drclaudiaheals.com/DrClaudiaHeals/About_Us.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There's something odd about a psychiatrist calling Scientologists mad just before HE commits suicide in an attempt to avoid justice and AFTER he has assaulted a thousand patients, killing 24 of them.  Those who criticise the CCHR would have to explain why it has what appears to be a strong knack of exposing psychiatric abuse.  
ASavantDude (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. Bailey suicide comment