Talk:Youth for Human Rights International

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).

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)

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)

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)