Talk:Citizens Commission on Human Rights

image and Controversies and criticisms... accomplishments to counter balance info?

i added an image that seemed relevant... protestors wearing CCHR shirts (a bit blurry but i am pretty sure that is correct)... please remove if it is not best to have on article though.

and... there is a section.... Controversies and criticisms .... why not add one about accomplishments ... or at least claimed accomplishments? this organization CCHR was founded by atheist psychiatrist Thomas Szasz.....

claimed accomplishments by CCHR:

https://www.cchr.org/about-us/cchr-accomplishments.html#:~:text=When%20apartheid%20ended%2C%20CCHR%20presented,disclosing%20information%20about%20psychiatric%20abuse.

https://www.cchrint.org/about-us/cchr-accomplishments/

disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Scientology. bias: I am a fan of CCHR, but I am not associated with CCHR in any direct way. I have read a lot of books by Thomas Szasz CCHR co-founder.

limitless peace... inner and outer peace to you. Michael Ten (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Psychiatry: An Industry of Death (merged to this article)

I merged Psychiatry: An Industry of Death into this article. It is not a separate organization; is owned and operated by CCHR and is in the same building. It is more of an exhibit, not a museum (despite the name over the door). It is not notable on its own, which was clear from the sources in the article (mostly CCHR primary sources, a few "grand opening" coverage articles, some unnecessary celebrity name-dropping, and two heavy-hitting psych sources that didn't even mention CCHR or the exhibit.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Rollback

@RichardRahlsSon: Neither "big pharma PR machine" nor any editor gets to have their way with Wikipedia articles. All must follow policies.

From your first 3 edits:

1. I have fixed the "no source" issue.
2. The "statement of opinion from a journalist" is published in a reliable source and is attributed to him with in-text attribution as required by Wikipedia.
3. Szasz not being a scientologist is irrelevant to this article and can be found by clicking the link to Thomas Szasz. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead paragraph.

It seems from your choice of words in your edit summaries that you are extremely opinionated about this subject. You might want to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:PODIUM.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Your source you added fails to meet the minimum criteria for reliable sources.

Specifically it cannot be traced to a specific author, cannot be verified by the general public, and you linked to an article published before the internet, reposted on the wayback machine with zero context to support your claims sufficiently.

Lastly on the topic of your questionable source, it has no authenticity or sources itself. It is merely another chunk of text on the internet buttressing your views.

I have not injected any "strong opinions" on the subject, I've merely removed someone elses strongly opinionated statements based on flimsy sources which do not meet the minimum qualifying standards for Wikipedia. 73.169.83.170 (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

RE:2. A reliable sources opinion is not a fact. It does not meet Wikipedias qualifications to be cited as a source, and opinions do not belong on Wikipedia. 73.169.83.170 (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

RE:3. If his not being a Scientologist and distancing himself from the church of Scientology isn't relevant, then that also means your opinionated sources do not belong on the page.

However, your claim is incorrect. The background of the founder and his dissociation with the church of scientology lends him credibility. Something which readers need to know if they are to understand the context and origins of the organization. 73.169.83.170 (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You might want to read the things you cite yourself as they support my actions:

"This is because we only report information that is verifiable using reliable sources, and we base articles on secondary and independent sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."

Please stop adding unverifiable sources and polemic quotes to Wikipedia followed by accusing editors of your own misconduct. RichardRahlsSon (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle dictates that you should not re-revert, but should discuss on the talk page (or continue to discuss). Repeated reverting leads to WP:Edit warring which can get you banned or blocked. Edit summaries are for brief comments about your edits, not lengthy objections, which belong on talk pages. Four of your recent edit summaries were truncated (left incomplete). Please put your position or arguments on the talk page in order to come to a consensus with other editors (not just me). You are also expected to be civil to other editors, even when you disagree with them.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

My edit summaries were added to the talk page beforehand.

I would kindly remind you that falsely accusing others of your own misconduct is in fact uncivil. Being called out for violating rules and standards is however not uncivil.

Please stop. RichardRahlsSon (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)