Talk:British Helsinki Human Rights Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For those interested in following the latest activities of the BHHRG I would draw attention to the 'London International Democracy Institute' which conducted 'election monitoring' during the recent parliamentary elections in Kyrgyzstan (February 2005). Not unsurprisingly the LIDI posted positive findings for the first round of elections - lining up alongside the CIS observers. See "Analysis: Kyrgyz, Tajik Elections Present Familar Issues, New Context", Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 02 March 2005). The LIDI was fronted by Alexander Tsinkler, last seen in Ukraine as Head of the Observer Mission from 'the Instiute for East European and CIS Nations'. I would be interested to learn whether there is any evidence of a link between the reports that the Kremlin is active to create 'NGOs' for election monitoring purposes and the activities of organisations such as the ones mentioned above.

Someone wrote: it has campaigned against immigration to the United Kingdom.it has campaigned against immigration to the United Kingdom.

This is credible (from all i've read so far), but it would be good to have some online evidence. Could whoever wrote this please add some external links? thanks. Boud 13:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't source it, so I removed that particular claim. I think it came from a claim that someone else made about BHHRG, rather than a statement by BHHRG itself. -- ChrisO 15:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right now the article reads like a website review. I'm sure it's nice to know that this or that information is missing from the website, but it seems improper to attach so much weight to these omissions when they might just as well be the result of an absent-minded website editor. 84.239.128.9 11:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The point is not simply that the information is missing but that it's part of a pattern - the BHHRG does seem to be a very secretive bunch. -- ChrisO 12:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ChrisO - whoever he is - is a secretive bunch all to himself. Now start running to the NSA, my boy. They'll tell you who is behind my ISP.

Why not simply read their webpage? No secrets there.

The Exile has referenced this article in their latest (Dec 24, 2004) issue. The article is titled Russia’s Fifth Column; one in a series about the disputed election in Ukraine. There is further criticism of the activities of the BHHRG, but since it quotes the Wiki as a primary source, I've only linked to it here, to avoid self-referentiality. —Clarknova 18:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Exile is run by a certain Edward Limonov, chairman of the National Bolshevik Party in Russia. Not the sort of politician which would be accepted in democratic societies, surely. The BHHRG is often attacked by Stalinists, anti-Semites, and Neo-Nazis. Tells you all you need to know.

Who is "ChrisO". Who are you?

And who are you, anonymous editor? Why not get yourself a user account?

The reason I've been removing some of your contributions is because they don't fully comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. We have to present a dispassionate view of both sides of the argument, not lend our support to one side or the other. Hence "Proponents of the BHHRG suggest that this demonstrates that the group is entirely independent of governments" is neutral while "Of course, it can easily be argued that this demonstrates that the group is entirely independent of governments." isn't - that's a commentary, not a description of someone's position. I'm sure you'd find it useful to have a look at the NPOV policy before you make more edits to the BHHRG article. -- ChrisO 21:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I think you find it useful to reread your own entries. You claim things that are very tendentious, but somehow they are "neutral". You say I am a "proponent". Will you describe yourself as an "opponent"? If not, why not? Does it mean I can edit all you say by adding "Opponents of the BHHRG" say.....

Yes? Or no?

You were the one starting this entry. You identify yourself first. If you do, I will follow. Word of honour.

The fact that it's based out of Norman Stone's house surely is relevant, given that it's run by his wife - Stone may not be a trustee of the BHHRG but he's certainly part of the Oxford Conservative group, as I know from personal experience, having had some dealings with him when I was at the University in the 1990s. He's also definitely associated with the BHHRG, having done work on its behalf in Slovakia [1].

Is guilty by association your modus operandi? Stone is not a part of BHHRG whatsoever. There is no "Oxford Conservative Group". Your personal experience with the members of the BHHRG is interesting. It raises the suspicion that you might write out of other motives than simply providing information. The reader should know where you stand.

As for changes to the article, please feel free to suggest some, but bear in mind the NPOV requirements and the relevance of your contributions. Saying whether the BHHRG is right or wrong about things is both partisan and beyond the scope of the article. We can legitimately report what other groups and people say about it, and what it says about them. And please don't post personal comments to the article - that constitutes vandalism and could result in you being blocked from editing. -- ChrisO 22:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I do not edit out any of your links, not even your list of controversial aspects, although that list is suggestive and does not provide a balanced picture of the BHHRG. Your original article was terribly biased. Only since I have been editing has certain counter-balancing and relevant information been added.

--- Whoever wrote this article about the BHHRG clearly has a political agenda. It is not objective information; it is an attack piece and as such explicitly violates the Wikipedia's stated terms of service policy. I am notifying those responsible for Wiki of this violation. ---

[edit] On Norman Stone

The location of the BHHRG's "office" (probably Norman Stone's study) is mentioned in Jeremy Druker's report: "The group is run out of Stone's three-story, red-brick Victorian house in Oxford. There is no identifying plaque for the BHHRG outside the house." [2] Given that this is both factual and relevant, I suggest that this article's anonymous editor should refrain from deleting it. -- ChrisO 23:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is not factual. The organisation is not run from the study of Norman Stone. I cannot for the life of me see what is relevant about it with regard to the BHHRG of which Norman Stone is not a member.

Two more relevant points: the article you quote is 6 years old. The article does not mention Norman Stone. From the article one cannot read the information you dissiminate in this entry, which seems to be entirely based on your personal knowledge.

The BHHRG is a very small organisation in which most if not all of the key members have personal, professional or political ties with each other - if I was going to be partisan about it I could describe it as a small coterie of like-minded right-wing academics. Let's join the dots:

• The organisation is run out of Norman & Christine Stone's home.
• Norman Stone himself has worked for the BHHRG on its observer missions.
• His wife Christine co-founded it.
• His colleague Mark Almond (a fellow member of the Oxford history faculty until 1996) is another co-founder.
• The third co-founder, John Laughland, is a former lecturer at the Sorbonne, which is presumably where he crossed paths with Almond and/or the Stones.
• All four share a common (right-wing libertarian) political outlook and an interest in central and eastern Europe.
• Norman Stone isn't in the limelight quite as much as the BHHRG's trustees but he's certainly involved. NOPE. The definition of who counts a "member" is in any case very vague, as it doesn't publish a list of members, but Stone has certainly worked for the BHHRG. By that definition at least, he is a member. -- ChrisO 01:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You treat this whole thing as some Shelock Holmes excercise. Although the article is now a bit more "neutral", as the wiki rules require, it is still pretty biased, with the dominant tone of your work being one of "exposing a secretive bunch". When I first read it I had the distinct impression you were on some personal vendetta. That stinks.

The fact that Norman Stone may have participated once or twice in BHHRG activities is of little relevance. By that logic, I'd be a member of the Conservative Party for life if I took part in one of their conferences on "Privatisation and the Happiness of Mankind" or some such subject in 1993.

By the way, who is "ChrisO"? And where do you live?

This is not a historical reference but a hatchet job. Who knows why the authors see themselves as the guardians of truth in contemporary political analysis, but there can hardly be any question that they do. I personally disagree with their take on the world which is only one of many, and find it disturbing that they will tolerate no dissent from their 'party line'. No one serious could ever rely on an entry framed in this manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.60.38.10 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC).