Talk:Scientology in Germany/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Text removed

The following text was removed:

Some of the German courts' decisions regarding Scientology have met with protest within Germany itself. The 1998 case Baden-Wurttemberg sent to the court received a protest of several thousand Scientologists in Berlin. In that case, the course was returned to the state court of Baden-Wurttemberg.

I don't understand what it means; will try to access the source later. Jayen466 19:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The admittedly poor phrasing was just to indicate that there was a protest of the Court's decision in that case by a body of Scientologists. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I hadn't actually realised that you had only just inserted this text. I thought it was part of the legacy from the other article. Jayen466 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources in "Criticism of Germany's stance"

I have placed a tag on the page denoting the primary source usage on this section. Government letters and meeting notes are considered to be primary sources. ←Spidern→ 19:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

These are primary sources referred to in cited secondary sources. The U.S. State Dept. report referring to the United Nations report is a secondary source relative to the UN report. The one citation that does need sorting I think is the one related to the hearings in the House of Representatives. Will look for secondary sources on that. Jayen466 20:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Using a primary source because it is referred to by a secondary sources is not a legitimate reason to do so. If that is the case, then please use said secondary sources instead. I have placed a primary sources tag on the page. ←Spidern→ 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We are using the US State Dept. report quoting the United Nations report, as well as quoting various papers quoting the US State Dept. report, with the primary sources given as ancillary cites. The German Bundestag source is drawn up by the Scientific Services division of the German parliament; I am not sure whether that makes it a primary source or not, but I would argue that it is an appropriate and authoritative source here in this context. Do you disagree? Which other sources are you concerned about? Jayen466 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As of this revision, the following sources:

3. Bverwg.de - Court documents

8. German intelligence report

11,12. Administrative court of Berlin document

13. Upper administrative court of Saarland document

17. Government conference report

4,22,25,26,27. USA dept of state report

As for the US State Dept reports, they are issued directly by the government instead of being summarized by a third party. Historical documents such as these are considered an insider's view to an event, and are thus primary sources. I am not so much concerned with the Scientific Services division of the German parliament because as you said, they are authoritative and reliable in matters such as this. ←Spidern→ 21:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, let's go through them.
• 3 is an ancillary cite, the actual judgment referred to by the Bundestag document.
• 8 is by the German intelligence agency; it will be easy to find a secondary source quoting them, but their notability I think is a given.
• For 11, 12 and 13, you are right; we should find a secondary source and retain the PS as an ancillary cite.
• 17 is an ancillary primary source cite supporting the secondary source which quotes from it.
• The US State Dept. reports are mostly ancillary primary source cites, supporting secondary sources directly referring to them. (Most of the cites to them occur in one sentence also cited to two secondary sources. I don't think we say much more than what the secondary sources say, but feel free to check up on it and amend as appropriate.) Beyond that sentence, I think the US State Dept. are a trustworthy source for (1) the assertion that German political parties don't accept Scientologists as members, and (2) for the content the UN Report. Cheers, Jayen466 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This situation is not quite the standard one, Spidern. These are primary sources whose relevance is a given, and does not have to be established by secondary sources. The views of the German parliament are clearly relevant to what this article is about. Certainly, they are self-published sources, but they are a rather different sort of SPS than an unknown writer's vanity project. The views of the United Nations are clearly relevant, and the selection of the UN statement we quote has been made not by us, but by the US State Dept., a notable commentator itself quoted by numerous secondary sources, some of which are cited here. Jayen466 21:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The notability of institutions such as the US State Dept. is not under question here. And the issue is certainly not that of being a self-published source. The fact is, court documents, intelligence reports, and other historical documents can not be used for citations of fact. In the instance where you describe the UN statement, usage is debatable because it is not an interpretation but a quote. However, it remains a primary source and can not only be used for descriptive claims. ←Spidern→ 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you got that the wrong way round. PS may only be used for descriptive claims, and not for interpretation or analysis. I could argue that we are merely describing here what the US State Dept. said, but I won't do that, because I generally support your drive to aim for secondary sources. Jayen466 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You got me. But what I meant to say was that primary sources can't be used to establish a fact, and must be directly attributed as having an opinion when said opinion is represented. ←Spidern→ 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the best way to deal with this would be to seek additional input from people familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines at the reliable sources noticeboard? John Carter (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have created a relevant thread over there. ←Spidern→ 22:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:NOR/N would be a better place. Mind you, that board is not exactly a hive of buzzing activity. Jayen466 10:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Churches and Missions in Germany?

I think it would make sense to add information about the various locations the Church has in Germany, probably toward the beginning of the article. It might be particularly useful in helping to make sense of some of the later content which relates to one or more particular locations. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean listing specific cities that have Churches or Missions? At the moment we only say that there are some in the larger cities. Jayen466 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically, yeah. For most other large churches, we have lists of all the administrative sections of countries, and the same probably should apply here. Maybe something indicating their locations, possibly in chronological order and indicating which if any missions got raised to Church status and when that happened. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It will be hard to source this sort of thing to a secondary source, but I'll have a look. Cheers, Jayen466 17:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Haven't found an awful lot, but have added some info.

I was thinking of listing the article for GA one of these days; do you think there are any major (or minor) issues to be addressed, or gaps to be filled, before we do so? I can think of one – some GA reviewers might well request that we use a consistent citation template format, which at present we don't. But other than that, I think the article offers a useful summary of the topic now. Cheers, Jayen466 19:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion regarding using a church's website as a source for their locations at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Church websites reliability regarding internal structure of that church. So far, the discussion seems to indicate that a church-operated web site would be a reasonable source in such matters. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Note that the cited source quotes the BfV and actually draws attention to the fact that Scientology's own website does not list the missions, and lists one church less in Germany. We could give both sources' versions with attribution for each. Would that make sense? Jayen466 19:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It would seem the BfV is correct. There is a tenth church not listed on berlin.scientology.de, although it's listed on theta.com. It's the Munich Celebrity Center. Jayen466 02:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Interesting article and one befitting of this project. What I do not see is the statement by the German intelligence agency that they found no evidence that the so-called anti-democratic or objectionable writings of Hubbard form any part of how Scientology is actually practiced. I do not exactly remember how it was worded but I remember thinking that it was about time that someone understood that point. Critics love to cherry-pick lines from Hubbard and point at them without regard for whether the things they point at form any real part of the practice of Scientology. If one of you finds that before I do will you please give it the treatment it deserves. It might have been on a BBC site. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Berlin Administrative Court commented upon that; the article you recall may have been in relation to that decision. Jayen466 17:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Found it. Quite a lot of press on the statement. Interior Minister(?) Erhart Korting in November 2008. It is certainly "damning with faint praise" but one key point that Herr Korting makes is that, of the writings, etc. "they put very little of this into practice" [1]:

"This organisation pursues goals - through its writings, its concept and its disrespect for minorities - that we cannot tolerate and that we consider in violation of the constitution. But they put very little of this into practice," Erhart Koerting, Berlin's top security official, told reporters on Friday.

"The appraisal of the Government at the moment is that (Scientology) is a lousy organisation, but it is not an organisation that we have to take a hammer to."

This is exactly the point Sabine Weber made a year previous [2] and the point that I mention in my previous post:

Sabine Weber, president of the Church of Scientology in Berlin, called Schaeuble's remarks "unrealistic" and "absurd."

She said the interior minister based his evaluation "on a few sentences out of 500,000 pages of Scientological literature."

--Justallofthem (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, had been googling and beavering away and only just noticed your post. I'll have a look at these. Jayen466 21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these, incorporated in the section on the ban. Jayen466 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scientology in Germany/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I will be reviewing this article for GA. On initial reading I am impressed, in that it seems a NPOV article on an intriguing topic. A very interesting article. I will add comments as I find issues to comment upon. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• The titles under References should not be in all caps.
• Why are "churches" and "missions" in quotes? Is this because the German government does not consider them as such, or that the Scientologists do not call them that, or that no one calls them that? (It is called the Church of Scientologists, is it not, by most, ... or not?)

—Mattisse (Talk) 03:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I followed the cited (German) source here, which has "Kirchen" and "Missionen" in quotes. It's probably because the German government (and press) are reluctant to describe the Church of Scientology as a religious organisation. The German government, for example, always pointedly refers to the "Scientology Organisation" (see for example the leaflet shown in one of the pictures) rather than the "Scientology-Kirche". But I am happy to lose the quotation marks if you prefer; I don't think English writing usually has them. Jayen466 21:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The German Church of Scientology does refer to them as Kirchen (churches): [3] Jayen466 21:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It seems to be that to be NPOV, the article should follow whatever the Scientologts call themselves and not the Germany government's skepticism. That is the government's POV. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
      •  Done. Jayen466 19:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • comment - I think the terms "missions" and "churches" are used in translation because those are the terms the Church of Scientology itself uses to describe their locations, with missions rankling, basically, a bit lower on the scale than full churches in terms of stability, financial support, what have you. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Prose issues

• Using "firstly" is unduly stuffy
• You mention "The Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution)" twice in the body of the article . The second time, you say "the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz ("BfV", Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution)". It should be fully established at the first mention, then whatever you are going to use to refer to it as, the "BfV" or whatever, used subsequently.
• Your first mention of and link to Hubbard needs to be given a little context for the general reader.

—Mattisse (Talk) 16:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly --  Done Thanks for addressing the BfV issue. I wonder if we should italicise "Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz" and its abbreviation, BfV, as they are foreign-language terms? Jayen466 19:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute

• This review will be suspended as there is a content disputes going on.

—Mattisse (Talk) 17:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• So the upshot is that the legal status of Scientology as a religion or a philosophical community in Germany is unresolved? But that Scientologists pretty much carry on there as usual?
• Why would the U.S. State Department say, "We have criticized the Germans on this, but we aren't going to support the Scientologists' terror tactics against the German government."? Were there ever accusations that Scientology was using terror tactics against the German government? Or is this a reference to "its writings, its concept and its disrespect for minorities – that we cannot tolerate and that we consider in violation of the constitution. But they put very little of this into practice."?

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• • So the upshot is that the legal status of Scientology as a religion or a philosophical community in Germany is unresolved? But that Scientologists pretty much carry on there as usual? Yes, that is correct.
  • The "terror tactics" still refer to the Nazi comparisons. Here is the relevant source text this is based on:

    Since the State Department's commentaries on the Hollywood letter such an approximation of the positions hardly occurs anymore, as on the one hand the official critique of Germany was maintained in a diplomatically mild fashion; on the other hand, Scientology's Nazi parallels were harshly rebuked. State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns explained the American position as follows: "'We have criticized the Germans on this, but we aren't going to support the Scientologists' terror tactics against the German government.'" (WAP, Jan. 27, 1997). Accordingly, except for the above mentioned article using Scientology's frame (LAT March 13, 1997), all other articles continue to employ the discrimination frame, but have become more cautious in evaluating the German government's policy.

    — http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/schoen.html

  • I've added information to make the context of these statements clearer. Jayen466 02:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am withdrawing as a reviewer, as Geometry guy has taken over the review and is undermining my ability to continue. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood Lobby

• Good article? I don't think so. No mention of the Hollywood lobby as detailed in Kent.
• He sums up the issues clearly in interview

• Stephen Kent: I really puzzle over why the American government gave such access to a number of Scientology celebrities who really have no educational background to comment on international affairs. Part of the answer might be that one of America's biggest exportable commodities is entertainment; the movie industry, music and so on. Consequently movie stars of a wide variety have a certain social cache, they become ambassadors of American culture.
• Stephen Crittenden: So a cult which is all about turning yourself into some kind of demi-god, is publicly represented by the leading demigods in our culture, and when they walk into the room, even the masters of the universe in Washington go weak at the knees?

• Stephen Kent: Andrew Morton gave a very interesting description about Tom Cruise's interactions with Vice-Presidential adviser, Scooter Libby , and that kind of deferential behaviour and excitement and almost childlike giddiness, the major politicians got when they were around in this case Cruise, or early with John Travolta is quite astonishing to read.

• Stephen Crittenden: Stephen is there something about Hollywood stars that makes them particularly vulnerable to the laws of Scientology?
• Stephen Kent: Hollywood is a very peculiar social and working environment. Nobody really knows what it takes to get ahead. Is it good looks? Well, everybody is good-looking except for some celebrities whose bad looks make them marketable. Is it intelligence? Well there's some pretty dim lightbulbs in Hollywood. Is it skills or talent? Hollywood is an uncertain environment. It's difficult for anybody in that business to know what allows them to get ahead and what holds them back. What Scientology promises is that it has the skills and techniques to allow people to overcome those limitations that prevent them from reaching their full capacities. And now Hubbard's policy about celebrities also indicated that you should get them on the way up, or get them on the way down. It doesn't hold in all cases but in many cases.
• Stephen Crittenden: Not in Cruise's because they got Cruise right at the top almost, didn't they?

• Stephen Kent: That's true. But he did get in through a marriage relationship with Mimi Rogers , who was a long-standing Scientologist. But for other movie stars and celebrities, Isaac Hayes is a classic example - his career was going down when they got him involved; Travolta's was just starting to take off when he got involved. So what happens is a career gets saved, or a career improves, and a person's taking Scientology courses, he or she may attribute their new successes to the Scientology involvement.
• Stephen Crittenden: During the Clinton years, Scientology used these celebrities to lobby very hard in Washington, especially about the German government's treatment of Scientology. That's what they wanted the State Department to do something about. Now just tell us the background of that and tell us whether they were successful or not.

• Stephen Kent: OK. Once Scientology received IRS designation as a charitable organisation, then it became an organisation deserving American State Department protection overseas, given the fact for example that a number of Scientologists, Tom Cruise, Travolta, Chic Corea, were involved in entertainment in countries like Germany that were hostile to Scientology, the US State Department from time to time, got involved in German internal affairs, criticising Germany for its hostility towards Scientology. Now the German constitution is unique because of its historical background vis-à-vis Nazi Germany and as you know, Nazi Germany initially entered German politics through a legitimate democratic election. Consequently, the current German constitution requires authorities to be proactive to go after any threats against the German constitution before they develop, and Germany has looked at Scientology policies and has decided that it's an anti-democratic organisation. As such, the Germans have something called the Verfassungsschutz - the constitutional police -, and it's their obligation to monitor organisations that are likely potential threats.Now as the movement against Scientology was growing in the early '90s, at various times there was talk in Germany about banning these celebrities, and on those issues for example, the US State Department got involved. Because now it was protecting American interests in the entertainment business.

• Stephen Crittenden: So these Hollywood stars are lobbying the Clinton White House in the mid-'90s, trying to get the US Administration to put pressure on Germany to soften its approach to Scientology. Did they succeed?

• Stephen Kent: No, they didn't succeed. Just in the past year, the German government has renewed the monitoring operation against Scientology. It is the case however that a number of the celebrities have been able to perform in Germany so even - what - a few months ago Tom Cruise finished a movie about the German World War II hero who tried to assassinate Hitler, it remains to be seen however, with that movie about Von Stauffenberg what its success or failure may be at the box office.

• Stephen Crittenden: But the implication is that that movie is a deliberate ploy to soften up German government and public opinion towards Scientology, is that right?

• Stephen Kent: Yes, Andrew Morton was fairly clear about the point that you just made, and he did convince me. Again, even someone like me who studies Scientology all the time, this forgets about the extent to which the organisation really tries to plot out and plan its global expansionist efforts, clearly the organisation would have been deeply interested, and it's high-ranking member, Tom Cruise, doing a movie against Nazism in Germany.

• Stephen Crittenden: Stephen, you make the point that in 1996 the State Department released its annual Human Rights Report, and its condemnation of Germany was so strong and the implication is that it was dictated from the White House, that the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, felt the need to personally apologise to the Germany government.

• Stephen Kent: Yes that's what one of my sources indicated. So it did look like that the White House somehow was taking a personal interest in promoting Scientology. Now it's also the case too, that every major American politician, certainly on the Federal level, at one time or another winds up in Hollywood because of money and finances, and certainly Hollywood celebrities and some Scientologists have been generous to - previously at least - the Democratic party. Cruise for example and Nicole Kidman, I think in the year 2000, donated several thousand dollars to Hillary Clinton's New York Senatorial campaign.

• Stephen Crittenden: Can we expect that the same would be going on again now that she's running for President?

• Stephen Kent: Everyone has wondered if Scientology is involved in Hillary Clinton's campaign. I've even tried to check myself in donor lists, and thus far, there isn't any evidence that Scientologists did involve themselves supporting Hillary Clinton.

• Stephen Crittenden: Stephen it seems fair to say that even someone with the celebrity status of Tom Cruise is now seeing his association with Scientology begin to backfire on him. How is Scientology viewed by the Hollywood establishment?

• Stephen Kent: One indication about Scientology's status in Hollywood came into Morton's book regarding the negative reaction Tom Cruise started getting by bringing in Scientology too much into his film productions. So that Stephen Spielberg for example, seemed to have been growing quite irritated with Tom Cruise because his promotion of Scientology was trumping Cruise's promotion of the movie 'War of the Worlds'. A number of Hollywood celebrities who've been critical of Scientology and Scientology is now the butt of jokes by comedians around the world.

• There are also dozens on news items the Germany/Scientology conflict that have not been represented. An example of the amount of press available can be found here

• And finally this presentation of information with the title reading Monitoring by the German intelligence services is misleading and disingenuous, and it is not contextualised. Kent states it clearly in the interview: "Now the German constitution is unique because of its historical background vis-à-vis Nazi Germany and as you know, Nazi Germany initially entered German politics through a legitimate democratic election. Consequently, the current German constitution requires authorities to be proactive to go after any threats against the German constitution before they develop, and Germany has looked at Scientology policies and has decided that it's an anti-democratic organisation. As such, the Germans have something called the Verfassungsschutz - the constitutional police -, and it's their obligation to monitor organisations that are likely potential threats".

• The user Jayen has a long history of ignoring information that does not support his view, and of using article entries to present biased overviews. Please be more cautious in your evaluation of this users contributions. Voxpopulis (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to User:Voxpopulis

• The Hollywood Lobby is irrelevant to this article and the link you have given, to http://www.lermanet.com/cisar/survey/hp.htm, is not to a reliable source. I do not understand the point you are trying to make. What is the point you are taking issue with? What relevant information is being ignored? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

the link is not a source, the link is a compendium of sourcable material, which any serious editor wishing to cover this matter would review.

The Hollywood lobby is, in fact, directly related to this issue.

Please read Lobbying in the House of Representatives for a Bill Condemning Germany if you have any doubts regarding the involment of the Hollywood lobby. Thanks. Voxpopulis (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What Kent actually says is

Scientology greatly expanded its access to resources by entering into an agreement (in October 1993) with the Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) that granted the American organization and its affiliates tax exemption. Receipt of the much-coveted exemption from tax on charitable grounds gave Scientology a degree of legitimacy in the United States that it had not had for decades, despite the fact that the organization received this exemption under most unusual circumstances.[v] Regardless of the conditions under which Scientology and the IRS reached their agreement, the charitable status was a greatly-prized resource (see Kent 1990, 398) that opened up important possibilities to gain even more resources and support. Most significantly, after the IRS/Scientology agreement, the United States Department of State now considered Scientology to be a tax-exempt religion, so it began criticizing Germany's actions against the organization and its members. Indeed, by the time that the IRS issued its agreement in late 1993, the battle between Germany and Scientology was growing in intensity.

— http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/article-scientology.html

The US criticism of Germany began in 1994, three years before the contact between President Clinton and John Travolta.

Kent is a useful source though; I'll add him to the external links. Cheers, Jayen466 19:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

again, a matter of framing, and it doesn't lessen the fact that a celebrity lobby was involved in pressuring for a response on Germany's policies:

"the article argues that Scientology's Hollywood celebrities were sufficiently influential in their federal lobbying during the Clinton administration that they influenced the American position (although not always in the direction they desired) on the American-versus-German debate over Scientology that took place between the two countries."

"If we can overlook [the] floundering responses, and if we put aside the unsuccessful campaign that attempted to link the condition of contemporary German Scientologists with pre-war German Jews, then observers of Washington politics must give credit to the partial effectiveness of Scientology's negotiation and celebrity lobbying efforts. Its negotiation of an IRS settlement has proven enormously valuable to the organization's image, and it is doubtful that Scientology's stars would have gained access to governmental elites without it. With that charitable status in place, Scientology and its celebrities apparently applied pressure on the Department of State, gained access to key State Department officials, motivated the U.S. Trade Representative (with Sonny Bono's assistance) to undertake a key copyright issue with Sweden (Bardach 1999, 91; Heintz 1997), won key congressional members to its causes, and even gained entry into the Clinton White House. Taken together, these achievements bespeak an organization that had learned how to make Washington listen."

Voxpopulis (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert

• re: User:Mattisse.
• Please state why you believe your revert is valid.
• We disagree with your actions and would like to request a third opinion.
• Thanks. Voxpopulis (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Placing this here. I have warned User:Voxpopulis on its talk page about the reversion of Mattisse's reversion and the edit summary. There are two issues here. A content dispute, which has been introduced on the talk page, and the reversions. So I'll say basically what I said to Voxpopulis. Do not revert others' changes without discussion. Start on the talk page of the article first. Be more than civil in your discussions on the content dispute. Admins can and will block editors, regardless if they are correct or accurate, for engaging in rapid reversions in an article on Probation. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

BfV vs BND

Re this edit summary saying that the BfV is not an intelligence agency, note that the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz is Germany's federal domestic intelligence agency. [4] The Bundesnachrichtendienst is the foreign intelligence agency. Jayen466 18:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Supportive stance by US

Re this edit, with the summary "possible synthesis, statement, as written, not explicitly stated in source provided": The cited source states, among other things,

Still the amazing difference between the American media's predominantly negative home news on Scientology and the at least partially supportive stance in the Scientology vs. Germany controversy calls for explanation, especially as the media coverage of new religious movements in general has been found to have a negative bias (see Wright 1997, Richardson and van Driel 1997, both with further references). Wright identifies several factors influencing the degree of media bias. In addition to common problems such as time and budget constraints and source problems he lists journalists' knowledge/familiarity with subject matter and the degree of cultural accommodation of the targeted religious group (p.104). Given Scientology's negative attitude towards journalists in general and its rather high degree of deviance from the mainstream, journalists can hardly be expected to regard it in a familiar and supportive manner or to see it as culturally accommodated. Yet the foreign news on the movement, where time and budget constraints as well as source problems are always far more severe than in home news, gets the more supportive coverage.

The statement made in the article is,

The United States have taken a partially supportive stance towards Scientology in relation to Germany, despite a general preponderance of negative accounts of Scientology in domestic U.S. news.

In addition, the article quotes the US State Dept., which represents the US in foreign affairs, criticising Germany for its stance, and offering asylum to a Scientologist claiming she would be subject to religious persecution in Germany. Jayen466 18:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's discussing the American media's partially supportive stance, not America's. Clearly a misprepresentation of the source. And you still seem reluctant to deal with the Kent paper. Why is that? Voxpopulis (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid you are flogging a dead horse. I added "media" to the sentence twenty-four hours ago, to better reflect the source wording. But note that American support has not been restricted to support in the media; support has also come from the U.S. government through diplomatic channels. If you read the religious freedom reports, what form this support took is spelled out and has been spelled out each year for the past ten years.

You are welcome to contribute to developing this article. But if your sole raison d'être for being here is to attack me, we will find ourselves at some appropriate noticeboard in the near future. Jayen466 21:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

my sole purpose here is to squeeze more information out of the sources, in an effort to see that the article is fair and balanced, maybe then it will be ready for GA status, threatening me with one form of wiki-disciplining or another because this doesn't suit you really is pointless, so dont. Voxpopulis (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Insertion of the phrase "the most despicable sort of offensive propaganda"

Re this edit, the cited source does not state anything remotely similar to "the most despicable sort of offensive propaganda". The previous version reflected the source, what VoxPopulis inserted is unsourced.

I will continue looking at these edits by Voxpopulis (talk · contribs), but having seen the first few, this seems less like a content dispute and more like disruptive editing by a sock (user name registered today, yet clear familiarity with WP). I wonder if we should consider a checkuser. Any advice appreciated. Jayen466 18:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Two admins are watchlisting the page. If you give your reasons for editing on the talk page and then edit accordingly with civil edit summaries, you should be able to edit the article in compliance with WP:RS. If necessary, the issue of the possibility of a breach of WP:SOCK will be investigated. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for the edits. Jayen466 20:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

you call this unsourced?

that explains why you excised an entire paragraph of sourced material, I suppose. Voxpopulis (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I call this unsourced. If you add new content, please do not retain the existing reference, but replace it with the new source, or add the new source, as appropriate.

As for the CSU paragraph, I consider it undue weight within this short section. It is not Kohl's party, and we don't quote any other political parties either. But we can discuss this here. Jayen466 20:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Note

• Voxpopulis (talk · contribs) posting at the Scientology arbcom case using IP 143.117.78.169 makes it clear that this is a sock of Semitransgenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Jayen466 15:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WGAF? There is no evidence of abusive sock puppet editing whatsoever, the contributions were legitimate, I choose not to employ the other account for other reasons. As stated above I am familiar with this users editing style, and have plenty of experience dealing with the manner in which he selectively sources articles and cherry picks content to suit his bias. Mereley highlighting this so others can be cognizant of the users politically charged adgenda. Voxpopulis (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Absurd

• Another misrepresentation of a source by Jayen, it does not say the letter was absurd it states that Kohl et al said: "The historical parallels in your letter are absurd,".

What are those parallels exactly? the news item quoting Kohl states that the comparison related to "Germany's assaults on Jews under Hitler to its current stance toward Scientologists" but this is not explicitly made clear until the final sentence of the section. Voxpopulis (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Just for your information, I did not introduce that phrasing, LeContexte (talk · contribs) did. However, I thought it adequately represented the source. Also note that the preceding paragraph first mentioning the letter states quite clearly that it "drew parallels between the "organized oppression" of Scientologists in Germany and Nazi policies espoused by Germany in the 1930s." Jayen466 19:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Response from the Jewish community

• And what about a response from the Jewish community? why is that not represented? Note the source is originally the July/August 1998 issue of B'nai B'rith International Jewish Monthly, not the website.

See also a letter from an Anti-Defamation League representative.

The New York Times Editorials/Letters Thursday, September 29, 1994 Attack on Germany

To the Editor:

The advertisement of the Church of Scientology ("Never Again," Sept. 22) parades concern about neo-Nazi skinhead activity in Germany. But the ad is a broad-scale, unjustified attack on the democratic German Government for having banned the Scientology movement. There are real problems in Germany today, and the Government could and should do more to combat the extremists and to educate for greater tolerance and pluralism. That, in no way justifies the assault — the imagery of Nazi-like society — depicted by the Scientology ad.

Making things worse is the Scientology effort to link the German ban of the group to Nazi persecution of Jews. This is a disgrace and reflects the group's willingness to go to any lengths to take revenge on a Government that has taken action against it.

-ABRAHAM H. FOXMAN Natl. Dir., Anti-Defamation League New York, Sept. 23, 1994

Voxpopulis (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There is another source which states that one of the original signers of the advertisement later removed his name from it saying that he found the comparisons to the Holocaust distasteful. As I remember, there is at least one article out there which deals only with that individual removing his name. Unfortunately, I've got around 600 articles printed out right now, and finding a specific one of them is kinda difficult. But I do think that the numerous negative reactions to the advertisement deserve mention in the article. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

worth menitoning also that the UN investigator Abdelfattah Amor stated very unambiguously that "Any comparison between modern Germany and Nazi Germany is so shocking as to be meaningless and puerile". Voxpopulis (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There certainly was criticism from some in the Jewish community, but it is also worth noting that many of those who signed the letter were Jewish. Also, the letter compared the Scientologists' treatment to that which Jews experienced in Germany in the 1930s, i.e. before the Holocaust, when Jews were similarly excluded from public life. Schön discusses this in some detail. Perhaps the letter deserves an article to itself, where all these nuances can be brought out. For reference, the actual text of the open letter is here for example. Jayen466 19:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

that Time article also discusses why Jewish celebrities may have particpated: "An executive who declined to participate is Joe Roth, chairman of the Disney studios, which did well with the Travolta film Phenomenon. "Bert made it less about [Scientology] and more about connecting to feelings about the Holocaust," says Roth. "Either that, or they're all whores for Tom Cruise and John Travolta, and they wanted to be on the right list." And, as John has mentioned, there are reports of some withdrawing their support once they saw the advert, so let's try to keep this in context, and not milk this celebrity support thing, especially without mention of Kent's findings, otherwise your efforts here might continue to be misconstrued as disingenuous. Voxpopulis (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am not trying to milk this thing. It was huge international news. Kent was not. Jayen466 19:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. Variety as I remember ran several articles on the statement from the celebrities, and other magazines did as well. The Kent statement, while notable, probably doesn't rise to the same level of notability, and probably doesn't deserve directly equivalent mention. Having said that, quite a few FAs are longer than this one, and at least a short mention might be worth including. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Are you rewritting the rules relating to admissible sources now? Kent is a qualified academic, he has written a peer reviewed paper, it was published in an academic journal, are you suggesting that this verifiable secondary source should not be referenced? Would you rather piece this section together using primary source interpretations and cherry picked quotes from various news reports? Voxpopulis (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not, and I find the accusatory nature of the above comment to possibly be in and of itself a violation of wikipedia civility policies and guidelines such as those in WP:CIVIL. The relevant policy is WP:DUE, which I suggest he reads. And I very strongly urge the above editor to conduct himself more in keeping with wikipedia standards in the future. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't addressing you, but the question still stands: is it the view here that a secondary source, that provides peer reviewed analysis, is inadmissable in this instance? Voxpopulis (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No, and that actually isn't what has been said or done. It apparently has been admitted, as an external link. The question is how much weight to give that content in this article. So far as I can see, the content in question is content which, while from a peer reviewed secondary source, is not one which has had much demonstrable impact, for lack of a better word, relating to the subject of the article. It is often the case, particularly when the main subject relates to religious matters, that such sources may present a minority view on the subject. There are any number of articles relating to the "truth" or lack of same of the majority viewpoint regarding Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Mohammed, Buddha, and other religious figures, saying things like Jesus was a female, Mary was a rape victim, Mohammed was psychotic, Buddha (or Jesus or Mary or Mohammed, for that matter) never actually existed, etc., etc., etc. Such content may be from peer reviewed journals, and often is. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that those statements hold much if any weight with the general public or academia. In such instances, content relevant to the subjects is either removed or placed in a different article. It is generally the obligation of the person seeking to add content to an article to provide specific justification for the inclusion of the questioned material before it is included. This is particularly true in such hot button articles as those which relate to Scientology. In all honesty, I don't remember having myself seen the Kent material referenced even once in the various articles I've read on the subject to date. That might be telling. Granted, I haven't read them all, but we have to base our actions on what we know, not what we think might be true.

Having said all that, like I said elsewhere, a lot of FAs are much longer than this one, so it still could be the case that material could be added. If you could propose some idea of what sort of specific phrasing you'd like to see included regarding that content, that might help a lot. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you use the Kent article, remember that Kent is using the relationship of celebrities and Scientologists as an example of a larger problem of celebrities having political power in the American political system, so you would be taking references to celebrities and Scientologists out of context unless you mention that this is the issue.

As is common in other instances of celebrities' political involvement, Scientology's celebrities have contributed to the trivialization of serious issues that confront the international community.

On a practical level, perhaps the most significant question that this article generates is whether the influence of Scientology's celebrities was indeed part of a larger pattern of accessibility that Hollywood experienced because of systemic predilections involving media, money, and political power in the American political system, or instead was a temporary window of opportunity fostered by the social climate of the Clinton administration. Cultural studies theorists who view celebrities and politicians as constructing "public subjectivities to house the popular will" (Marshall 1997, 204) undoubtedly see the infusion of celebrities into politics as a reality of post-modern life. In, however, the post-9/11 realities of a nervous America led by George W. Bush, one cultural commentator reflects, "[t]he whole fusion thing [between Hollywood and Washington] seems dated suddenly.... [W]hat the public wants now are supercompetent technocrats with no discernible private lives who sublimate their libidos by plotting strategy instead of parading them on cable [television]" [Kirn 2002, 12]). For many people, world events may have become more gripping than entertainment, so celebrities may find fewer politicians and smaller audiences for their opinions on pressing issues of the day.

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Points taken, the external link has only just been added by Jayen. The matter of how, and why, celebrites garner political influence is covered very pragmatically by Kent, but it's nothing new, it's a no brainer. Kent simply takes this idea and applies it to the matter of the Scientology/Germany matter:

"the article argues that Scientology's Hollywood celebrities were sufficiently influential in their federal lobbying during the Clinton administration that they influenced the American position (although not always in the direction they desired) on the American-versus-German debate over Scientology that took place between the two countries."

This is not a particularly controversial, or fringe position. Lobbying is part and parcel of American politics, it really is not contentious to suggest that the obscenely wealthy, whether they be celebrities or not, have influence in certain politial cirlces. However, aside from the observations relating to celebrity influence Kent offers other details relating to Scientology activities in Germany which may be usable in this article, and I find it odd that the information, whether it is sourced from Kent or not, is not presented here, and the section 'Scientology presence in Germany' does seems rather weak. Also, a reading of Schön (used to support this assertion) demonstrates that key points she makes regarding the "framing" of the debate are overlooked in the article, for instance the following clearly elucidates the matter of the American media appearing to support Scientology in its criticism of Germany:

Foreign news always has to deal with far more pressing limitations of research time and budgets than home news. There are far less sources available, less time to check them, and finally less space in the newspaper to present an issue. Given such circumstances, the frame gains importance, since the articles have to be consistent in themselves. Rather than dropping the frame altogether, information which contradicts the frame may not be regarded, and information which is incomplete or unclear may be interpreted according to the frame. It is of course idle to speculate which sources journalists were using. However the pattern of the mistakes they made is telling.

In interesting point in question is the ascription of the locus of control regarding the discrimination against Scientologists. The State Department clearly assigns treatment responsibility to the German government, although it is cautious in attributing causal responsibility or in making evaluations in this regard. The press is less cautious and sees the government at work even where it cannot possibly intervene.

A nice example is a passage in the letter from Hollywood which states "Children have been excluded from schools because their parents are Scientologists." (International Herald Tribune Jan. 9, 1997, quoted from FAZ Jan. 18, 1997). The letter does not specify the type of school. However both the Los Angeles Times (Jan. 11, 1997) and Washington Post (Jan. 14, 1997) quote the letter as speaking of public schools. Expulsion from public schools is also quoted as a claim made by Scientologists in the New York Times of Nov. 8, 1997. But this never happened (see German Embassy, www.germany-info.org/newcontent/np.bak/np_3k.html). Apparently, the cases have occurred at private institutions and seem to be about non-admittance more often than expulsion. Scientology mentions instances at one private Hamburg school, a private parents' initiative in or near Essen, a private kindergarten in Stuttgart, and two unidentifiable kindergartens (Church of Scientology International 1996 a, p.7f.). The newsmagazine SPIEGEL (6/1997, p.77) identified one Protestant kindergarten in Krefeld, which did not admit the child of Scientologists because their beliefs were found to be incompatible with the Christian principles of the institution.

Now the question is why the newspapers took the unidentified schools mentioned in the letter to be public schools. As proper research would have led them to different results, the most plausible explanation lies in the frame within which the information was given. A frame speaking of "organized governmental discrimination" and concluding that the situation sounds more "like the Germany of 1936 rather than 1996" (International Herald Tribune Jan. 9, 1997, quoted from FAZ Jan. 18, 1997) calls to mind the exclusion of Jewish pupils and students from public schools by the Nazis. The fact that this is exactly how the newspapers interpreted the claim shows the suggestive effect of the frame.

Information which is incompatible with the frame is likely to be rejected. The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times (both Jan. 27, 1997) quote a paper from the German embassy which stated that "the German government has not taken any legislative action against the Scientology sect", but add that German state governments have. I am not aware of such legislation. Even the Bavarian screening of applicants for public service on membership in the organization, which is quoted as evidence by the Los Angeles Times, is solely an administrative order, but does not have the rank of a law (see KWMBl I Nr. 20/1996, p.396). Obviously the fact that no legislative action has occurred seems to be inconceivable, so rather than questioning the frame, the information by the German embassy is interpreted as being at least incomplete, if not misleading. Thus, even first-hand information by an official source loses credibility if it threatens the overall framework.

Other powers falsely ascribed to the government include the barring of Scientologists from membership in major political parties (NYT Nov. 8, 1997). Of course the government cannot dictate the parties' political programmes or otherwise interfere with the process of opinion formation within the parties. It was the parties' own decision that the teachings of Scientology are incompatible with their policy. Notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the Los Angeles Times (Jan. 27, 1997), the government has no power to list "authentic" religions, nor could such an action infringe on the guarantee of religious freedom. Religious freedom is granted by the constitution as a basic right of the individual and therefore is independent of the legal status of a religion.

This list could be continued. To sum up, the fact that the press frames the issues as a matter of discrimination and that it is far less reluctant than the State Department to ascribe causal responsibility to the German government can easily lead to erroneous causal attributions. Less background knowledge and the smaller amount of accessible information in foreign news gives journalists less of a chance to realize such mistakes.

Really, what I'm getting at here is that there is a GA review happening, but the sources do not appear to have beeen read very deeply. Having looked at the sources offered, it's notable what is missing, and what has been chosen to stress particular points. I find it worrying that snippets can be extracted to frame the argument in a particular manner and that article length can then be used as an argument against more detailed and pragmatic analysis. Voxpopulis (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly true, and, considering Matisse came in as the reviewer, not something I can personally address one way or another. However, it generally is most productive to propose how to specifically improve the article, rather than point out its weaknesses. If you could make specific proposals as to what material is currently lacking in the article, preferably by making a sample of what should be made, where to place it and how to reference it, that generally is viewed less negatively. Can you think of any specific additions you'd like to see, and where they'd be included? John Carter (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Working with the sources currently on the table there would appear to be additional information worth considering, and hopefully I will be able to offer some suggetions, however, I do think there should be some onus upon editors who have already selected sources, and have extracted material that "fits the frame", to reconsider the manner in which material has been presented (not to mention excluded). Voxpopulis (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the above passage in Schön, but again, this is one paper. Our article does not go into the question whether the government is to blame for Scientologists being denied the right to join political parties; it does not mention Scientologist children being excluded from schools, and whether that is the government's fault or the fault of school management, etc. Instead, the article, at this point in time, attempts to give a broad overview of the general and very widely reported issues. Jayen466 22:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's a question of framing the debate, as Schön very clearly demonstrates, so why are you selecting the passage about schools out of all of the above? Are you actually reading these papers? or just trying to obfuscate the issue? Voxpopulis (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think you have to ask yourself, is this article about American (or English) sociological or political preoccupations, or is this article attempting to describe the situation as it is in Germany? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The signatory who regretted signing the letter later on

The Kent article given in the External Links mentions that

Afterwards, the film director Constantin Costa-Gavras expressed regret at having given the letter his signature [Reuters 1997].

Costa-Gavras is not a signatory we mention; if one of 34 signatories had regrets subsequently, I don't think due weight requires us to note that here. Incidentally, our article on him presently mentions neither that he signed the letter, nor that he regretted signing it later. Jayen466 22:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think it was a matter of "regretting" the signing so much as having his name removed as a signer, which I think is a bit more notable. I'll have to check for the article though. And I agree that such information might be better suited to an article on the letter itself, if such an article is ever created. Inclusion might constitute undue weight on the matter in the single parent article.

This does open up the question what if any other articles relating to the Church of Scientology in Germany should be created. I personally think that a few "subarticles" are probably in order, given the amount of articles I've found dealing with the subject myself, but am less sure what those subarticles should be. Any ideas? John Carter (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, once we are happy with this article, we could look at something like "Scientology in US-German relations" – a lot seems to have been written about this. Jayen466 23:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible additions

Eileen Barker is quoted in the article "Germany's probe into 'sects' raises religious-freedom issues" by Ruth Walker in the Christian Science Monitor, Vol. 88, Issue 247, 11/18/96, page 7, as saying "Germany has gone further than any other Western European country in restricting the civil rights of Scientologists," going on to be quoted in the same article as saying "The Scientologists tend to be their own worst enemy.... They use very agressive tactics, which have prompted unusually strong German responses. The Scientologists "use [this treatment] as an excuse to be even more aggressive." This "makes it difficult for either side to back down. Both sides need to have their heads knocked together."
I also think that it might be useful to add something toward the beginning of the article regarding the often-repeated statement in the press about how the German reaction to Scientology is apparently related to their extreme leeriness toward even potentially entering another phase of totalitarian government like that of Nazi Germany and "strong men" models. From the same article, Richard Singelenberg of the University of Utrecht suggested that the problem may lie there, and that, as he said there, "Since the '30's, German society has been very sensitive on this." John Carter (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

add to the list the Aktion Bildungsinformation who, "won all fifteen of the legal cases that it has brought against Scientology for alleged infringements of laws prohibiting recruitment in public places", though according to the author: "Yet, even this privately funded organization has close links with other anti-cult groups and, after the publication in 1979 of its 130-page book The Sect of Scientology and its Front Organizations, it must be treated as a part of the broader alliance of forces mobilized by the churches and the Federal government." Cults, Controversy and Control: A Comparative Analysis of the Problems Posed by New Religious Movements in the Federal Republic of Germany and France, James A. Beckford, Sociological Analysis, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Autumn, 1981), pp. 249-263. Voxpopulis (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Aktion Bildungsinformation and its successor organisation AGPF are mentioned by Melton (2000, p. 61) as notable German anti-Scientology and anti-cult organisations in Germany. They are probably worth a mention here. Jayen466 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes John, I agree. Kent also comments on the desire of the Germans to prevent a totalitarian regime coming to power again the way that Nazis did in the 30s, i.e. with broad popular support. Jayen466 18:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a couple of additions sourced to the Christian Science Monitor article, and also the Kent interview referenced above. [5] Thanks for the pointer to the source; I hadn't actually realised that the CSM had won Pulitzers. Jayen466 22:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• You guys appear to be doing a good job of working things out. I noticed your postings at the Reliable sources noticeboard. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions

I have some comments and questions concerning the framing of the article, with regard to sentence structure, emphasis and words to avoid, which raise neutrality concerns. I'd appreciate any efforts to address or clarify these issues.

1. First section: "This is a significantly lower number than the figure given by the Church of Scientology, which reports around 30,000 members.". "Significantly" editorializes: who says it is significant? The source doesn't. And the source may have a slightly different spin anyway: "The number of members estimated by the BfV at around 6000, the organization speaks of 30000 members". It could be questioning the veracity of the Scientology figures, while the article, if anything, does the opposite. Better, surely, to rephrase so that the sentence does neither, and only uses the source for the figures, not the spin.
2. Second section: "While Scientology considers itself a church, and is recognized as such in the United States and in a number of European countries, critics in Germany refer to it as a 'sect'." The source doesn't frame the information in the context of US recognition, nor use scare quotes, nor does it locate the critics in Germany. The article doesn't mention that the status of Scientology as a religion is a matter of widespread debate, nor that the US only accorded Scientology the tax-exempt status of a religion in 1993, and it generated controversy at the time.
3. The word "tax" appears nowhere in the article, and nowhere does the article mention that one benefit of being recognized as a religion in Germany would be tax-exempt status. German officials have referred to this in the sources.
4. There is some mention on this talk page about giving undue weight given to sources. There may be a misunderstanding there: "undue weight" refers to opinions, not sources. However as sources in controversial articles usually represent opinions, there is a link: it all depends how the article uses the source. The Time article "Does Germany Have Something Against These Guys?" is a case in point. Despite the sensational title and the publication date (1997, not long after the Hollywood letter), the article uses the source repeatedly to support sentences such as
   • "Most Germans consider Scientology a subversive organization, with pollsters reporting popular support for banning the Church as high as 70%"

     Changed per instructions of Geometry guy. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

     I gave no instructions. Even if I did, there's no reason to follow them, unless you agree with them. Geometry guy 09:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   • "Existing Scientologist members of these parties have been purged"
   • "German officials sharply rejected the accusations. They said that Germany guarantees the freedom of religion, but characterized Scientology as a profit-making enterprise, rather than a religion. They emphasized that precisely because of Germany's Nazi past, Germany took a determined stance against all 'radical cults and sects, including right-wing Nazi groups', and not just against Scientology."

   In the first example, the source does not have "as high as" (which editorializes) and does not provide any evidence for this assertion: why not cite some up-to-date polls, instead of relying on this information? In the second example, the source has "are being purged". In the third example, the source has

   • "The German government also guarantees freedom of religion but refuses to register Scientology as a religion, considering it a profit-making enterprise that is bilking its members of their savings. German officials explain that it is precisely because of the Nazi past that they are hard not only on Scientology but on all "radical cults and sects, including right-wing Nazi groups."

   "Sharply" in the first sentence of the article editorializes, and then "they" is used as a syntactic device to frame the material in the source. Why does the article need to do this?

5. I see no obvious sentence structure problems in section 3 (Legal status): this might be a good place to mention the tax issue from a neutral viewpoint.
6. I have generic and specific problems with section 4 (Monitoring by the German domestic intelligence services). Rulings against surveillance are described briefly by endorsing them, and describing the conclusion and/or the reason. In contrast, in a ruling supporting surveillance, the judgment of the court is called into question repeatedly. Is this analysis supported by the sources?

This is as much as I can comment on today. If anyone uses my comments to advance any agenda, they do not have my support. I am not questioning who is right, but drawing attention to the fact that this is an encyclopedia. It should not be possible to tell in a Wikipedia article which viewpoint it favours, other than the neutral point of view, the viewpoint upon which Wikipedia was founded, which represents all other viewpoints fairly and without bias. I'm concerned that the present article doesn't do that. Please reassure me. Geometry guy 23:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy, your adgenda is clear and is not neutral, as you expressed on your talk page. I am sorry that GAN reviewers enter into content disputes as is happening in this case. Unfortunately, I consulted Geometry guy over an unrelated issue, and he chose to take over the article and intervene in the content. I am sorry for the editors who are earnestly striving to do the right thing. I am sorry this has happened. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not a GAN reviewer. I have no viewpoint concerning this article and have only made minor edits. This is an article talk page. It should address the edit not the editor, the issue not the contributor. I hope that the questions I raise can be discussed on a factual basis. Geometry guy 00:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I consulted you in good faith, as an editor that seems to run GAN. On your talk page you expressed to me a strong point of view on how this article content should be decided. Because I did not agree, in good conscience I had to withdraw as GAN reviewer from the article. I believe very strongly that the GAN reviewer should not enter into determination of content. Unfortunately, Geometry guy feels he knows best. Those are conditions under which I cannot continue as reviewer. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

[Re point 1.] This is not in the article; anything similar has been removed per your demand. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It was taken out by Jayen before your comment (which you have now revised). I have not made any demands. Geometry guy 09:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the "significantly" swung both ways (a Scientologist would probably have read it the other way), but I have taken it out to avoid any possible impression of siding with either source. Jayen466 02:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Take out all such words, as it is Geometry guy's POV that counts here. He is going by a cookbook of words not to use. —Mattisse (Talk) 07:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The only point of view that counts is the neutral point of view, not mine. I agree "significantly" could be read the other way. It isn't a matter of siding with any viewpoint, it is a matter of avoiding unsourced editorial opinion. If something is significant, there should be a source which states it is significant. The sentence has been much improved by reworking it so that it simply presents the information. Geometry guy 09:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

[Re point 2.] Sect has been removed from the article per your instructions and the article made U.S.-centric. This can be increased, bringing in the American Civil Liberties Union and othr elements of the U.S. experience if you wish to further shift the focus to U.S. rather than maintain it on Germany. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I gave no instructions. You initially commented on the quotes (you have revised your comment). If quotes are needed for a reason, give a reason. The segment has been improved, but still talks about critics in Germany. The source does not. It has (rough translation): "Scientology was founded in 1954 by the American science-fiction author Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (1911-1986). The global organization, with headquarters in Los Angeles, describes itself as a church, while critics speak of a sect."

I am firmly against making the article US-centric. Why mention the US here at all? It isn't the chief arbiter of what constitutes a religion. My point is that the institutional German viewpoint is not represented fairly. Geometry guy 09:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

[Re point 3.] This aspect was in the article, but is not longer. The word "tax" is not in the article now. The word "tax" will be added to the article, per your wish, if at all possible. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for (again) revising your comment to address the issue. Jayen has responded on the issue of tax below. Geometry guy 09:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

[Re point 4.] It is unfortunate that there is a seeking to distort the relatively simple theme of the article by interjecting irrelevant material to satisfy all demands. Altho a talk page misunderdanding, or misuse of words in a way in which you do not approve, is not fundamental to the GAN, we can make it into a problem if you wish. I am removing all words that you might possibly object to or that seem to present too much of a stand, even if the source reflects this. I understand that the issue here is satisfiying your perceptions, although at the expense of a simple article. I guess it is not possible to have a small article on a simple fact with bringing in the Scientology wars a long the line that you are insisting be done.

Removed "sharply" as offensive to Geomery guy. This information is supported by soruces, but since it is offensive to Geometry guy, perhaps you will choose to remove it.

Although "purged" is used in the Time soruce, I recommend that it be purged from this article as offensive to Geometry guy's sensibilities. It probably should be added to the cookbook of words not to use.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattisse (talk • contribs) 09:02, 17 February 2009

I don't find it offensive at all, nor do I disapprove. I am simply questioning whether this is the best way to represent the source material. Please point me to the material being used to support this segment so that I can understand better.

This has nothing to do with GAN. I would also be in favour of a simple article that does not digress into arguments over Scientology. However, this isn't that article at the moment, and I don't think it represents the institutional German viewpoint fairly and without bias. I may be wrong, but that is what talk page discussion is for. Geometry guy 09:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Rulings against surveillance are described briefly by endorsing them, and describing the conclusion and/or the reason. In contrast, in a ruling supporting surveillance, the judgment of the court is called into question repeatedly. Is this analysis supported by the sources? This case, which the Church lost, was at the federal level, and thus is more important, warranting a description of the arguments of either side. The source certainly summarises the arguments of both sides and states that the court did not accept the reasoning put forward by the CoS counsel, just as we state it. Our presentation is very close to the source indeed and I think it is NPOV reporting, both in the source and in our article. Jayen466 02:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this evaluation; I see your summary as objective, considering the sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Tax: The source for the "Legal status" section, prepared by the Scientific Services Division of the German Parliament, says that recognition as a religious or philosophical community is a factor impinging on many aspects of a group's legal standing, and it mentions taxation and freedom of association (Vereinsrecht) as examples. I have no objection to mentioning these points in that paragraph and propose we do so. Jayen466 02:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• "as high as 70%": I've taken the "as high as" out again. We orignally just said "running at 70%", and I have now gone back to this. If someone can find a more up-to-date poll result, by all means let's have it. Jayen466 03:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• "are being purged": They were being purged twelve years ago, when the Time article was written. This source cites several cases of CDU members being asked to resign, and I recall reading about similar cases in the SPD and FDP (have to dig for the sources again). Jayen466 03:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• More tomorrow. Jayen466 03:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for your helpful and constructive responses. Geometry guy 09:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Pleasure. Now, as for more recent polls, I found one here from 2007, reporting 74% support, another here, citing 67% support. Both had a fairly small sample size (n = 1000) though. Will keep looking.

As for "sharply rejected", I don't mind if we don't have "sharply". As for what it was based on, Kohl called the letter "rubbish" and "snapped that those who signed the letter "don't know a thing about Germany and don't want to know."" The IHT article, cited later on (it should have been cited at the end of this sentence as well) also mentioned an "indignant response" from Kohl's party. The Time magazine article mentioned "the outrage of many Germans to see their government compared to the Nazis." Actually, reading all that I wonder if we shouldn't put the "sharply" back in. The response was very angry indeed.

Please explain what you mean by "they" is used as a syntactic device to frame the material in the source. If it is just that in the source wording, "In fact, everyone involved in the dispute is having trouble presenting a coherent case. The German government also guarantees freedom of religion but refuses to register Scientology as a religion, considering it a profit-making enterprise that is bilking its members of their savings. German officials explain ..." the statement as to the German government's guaranteeing the freedom of religion is not expressly reported as a statement made by officials, I concede that. Jayen466 13:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the way this is presented in the article; please let me know if this addresses your concerns. Cheers, Jayen466 16:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw as reviewer

Since Geometry guy has entered the article with his own opinions, I withdraw as reviewer. I do not want to get into a conflict. So, Geometry guy, the article is yours. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not reviewing the article, only contributing to the content dispute issue and seeking clarification and consensus on a neutral presentation of viewpoints. Geometry guy 00:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy expressed on his talk page the direction this article should go. Any reviewer taking over this article should consult Geometry guy first, as he has definite ideas as to the direction of this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

They might also listen to Mattisse's review, Jayen's viewpoint, John Carter's assessment, Voxpopulis' opinions, indeed anyone who has comments to make about the article. Each viewpoint only carries weight according to strength of argument. It is up to any reviewer to interpret them, and if my comments are regarded as nonsense, so be it! Geometry guy 00:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your talk page comments forced me to withdraw from this article as a reviewer. So, from my point of view, your comments are regarded as controlling. I do not think that GAN reviewers should take over the content of the article, as you are doing. You were consulted in good faith by me as a reviewer. I never would have done so if I thought you would interrupt the process and take over content control. I regret consulting you deeply. I am very sorry this has happened. I think this is an extremely bad precedent for Geometry guy, as the editor pretty much in charge of GAN, to make. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You cannot blame me for your decisions. I am not a GAN reviewer, nor am I in any way in charge of GAN. This is an article talk page. If you have concerns about editor conduct, please address them on user talk, not article talk. Geometry guy 00:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that you expressed very strong point of view to me, as reviewer, as to the direction this article should go. You may not be the "official" reviewer but you are an editor with a controlling influence over GAN, even if it is not an official capacity. I know I consulted you because I perceived you to have a controlling influence. You expressed a strong point of view to me as to how the content of this article should be determined. I felt I had no choice, as you forcefully expressed yourself in a situation in which I had no power. I believe that is unethical, as you were consulted on the understanding that you would provide unbiased help as an editor that has a deep involvement with GAN. Thus, for ethical reasons, I was forced to withdraw as a reviewer. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, Mattisse. I will consider Geometry guy as just another editor who gives feedback on the article here, and no doubt many other editors will do the same in the future. First let's see if we cannot work out the issues without too much ado and arrive at something that we can all consider NPOV. Jayen466 02:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that, as his point of view, as expressed to me, was quite strong, and I felt, rather distracting from the direction of the article. I liked the way you were approaching it. Sometimes editors get caught up in Wikipedia "conventions" for the sake of the conforming "policies" alone and that do not always relate to or improve the article. The conventional "don't"s like "scare quotes can easily be removed to satisfy him. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and no problem. The German usage of "sect" is rather different from the English usage of the word, and is approximately equivalent to the present-day English usage of the word "cult"; the quotes were supposed to acknowledge what is, in English, an unusual way of using the word. I can live without the scare quotes though. Jayen466 02:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that perhaps you should use the word cult instead, since "sect" does not really convey the meaning here, although it may be a more direct translation, while cult does. I suspected that was why you had "sect" in quotes. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. :-) Jayen466 03:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(←) I'm sorry I mentioned scare quotes. Undoubtedly quotes were not introduced for that reason, but they may give that impression.

However, I think this discussion misses the point. While the source may be German, and uses the German word Sekte, it doesn't attribute this to German critics. I have commented further above. Geometry guy 09:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is that German language usage, by employing "Sekte", differs from English language usage. Of course, you could argue that "Sekte" should properly be translated as "cult", but then the English literature does translate the "Sektenbeauftragte" as "sect commissioners", a term which we use in the article later on. I thought using "sect" in quotes was a useful way to establish the term as one that is widely used in Germany, thus preventing surprise on the part of the reader later on when they come across the term "sect commissioner".

Just for background, other Western European countries also use "secte" (French), "secta" (Spanish). German isn't alone in having gone for that word, but I meant to bring out the different language usage in the country discussed here. Jayen466 12:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a point, certainly. However, I haven't seen any response to my point that the source does not talk about critics in Germany calling Scientology a sect/cult. Indeed, the context (Los Angeles) suggests it is referring to US critics. Geometry guy 19:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resuming review status and failing article

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: I believe it began as NPOV for the most part, but pressures are being introduced to compromise this. NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Regretfully, I fail this article as it is hopelessly entangled in POV disagreements. I believe this is best for the article at this point. The subject is a ref flag and unfortunately I do not think the article has a chance currently, given the political climate at GAN.

In my view that article started out clean and the GAN process could have worked through any deficiencies and produced a good article. However, now that it is a political target, I believe it is best in the long run to remove it from this political arena at this time.

If you feel this assessment is in error you may submit the article to Good article reassessment. —Mattisse (Talk) 09:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Mattisse, and I agree with your decision. I think this still very young article will need a little more time to mature and to be exposed to various editors' POV. Thanks for your support, and best wishes. Jayen466 12:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead rewritten

I have rewritten the lead to better reflect the article content. Jayen466 13:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Letter and correspondence between Fields and Joffe

• Text of the celebrity letter
• Scientologists and Nazis By Betram Fields, Reply by Josef Joffe, New York Review of Books Volume 44, Number 11 · June 26, 1997

Might make a useful source if we ever create an article on the letter itself. Jayen466 00:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits

• [6] -- Too much extraneous detail. The parliamentary inquiry is an appropriate thing to mention; most of the rest isn't in my view. This article is not about "Unification Church, ISKCON, Children of God, and the Divine Light Mission", nor "the Waco Siege in 1993, Order of the Solar Temple associated murders and suicides in Canada and Switzerland in 1994, and the 1995 Aum Shinrikyo incidents in Japan." Jayen466 01:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• [7] The Gandow "Cruise is Goebbels" quote is rather notable: [8]. I am against deleting it. Jayen466 01:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I suggest you request a third opinion because I find your objections groundless. Voxpopulis (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, what you are citing is about the Enquête-Kommission. While it is fair to mention the Enquête-Kommission in relation to Scientology, it is not appropriate to mention the whole context and every cult that has ever murdered someone in this article, which is focused on Scientology in Germany.

The Gandow quote is the only reference we had to the Lutheran Church's activism. It is a major player in Germany, and that quote drew widespread national and international comment. We shouldn't be deleting it, if anything we should add a little more on the Lutheran Church. Cheers, Jayen466 01:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then please get a better source for this issue: in an encyclopedic context, tabloid like news snippets don't wash, we can do better than this. Voxpopulis (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between a tabloid snippet and an incident that was worldwide news. The Independent, the Guardian, El País, Algemeen Dagblad, La Stampa, Die Zeit, New Zealand Herald, Der Spiegel, Fox News, the Telegraph, etc. aren't tabloids. Jayen466 03:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also in response to your statement "let's stick to the topic of the article, rather than importing the entire anti-cult debate" I find your interest in burying context for the sake of the frame worrying. Particularly as the source is very clear in its overview of how the debate on Scientology in Germany started, and lists Scientology with the other groups mentioned, not becasue there is an anti-cult debate, but because the author is an expert, who sat on the commission, and who also opposed the commissions findings. This is again an example of you believing you know better than the sources when it comes to judging the relevance of admissible material. Voxpopulis (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the thing is the author is writing about the enquete commission; he is not writing about Scientology. All that context would be perfectly fine in our article on the enquete commission (I don't think we have one, actually), but here, it strikes me as WP:COATRACK. Jayen466 03:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• The article appears to be getting somewhat off topic when you get into cults around the world. Is there some evidence that the German people were specifically interested in the cults in Waco and Japan? And that these specific cults influenced German behavior? Both the Waco Siege and Order of the Solar Temple are marked with neutrality disputed tags, so I recommend that they be removed from the article. What is the relationship between Scientology and this cults? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And I recommend you actually read the source so you can appreciate why they are mentioned, your objections are foundation less and evidence a lack of concern for the significance of context. Are you disputing the authoritativeness of the source provided? do you have a source that clearly shows that there is no relevance? do you believe that adding context will weaken the article? and like Jayen, believe that the background relating to how Germany ended up reacting the way it did is simply extraneous? if so that is a remarkably myopic perspective. Voxpopulis (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as the book you mention is a very general book on the subject world wide, so it is not as specifically tailored to the situation in Germany as the other sources in the article are. Did Waco affect the German people more than the American people? Also, you refer to the book as if it is addressing the matter in a very general sense. This article is not about the general situation so it does not call for sources that address the world in general. All countries are influenced by hearing about sensational world events. Perhaps you could give examples of how these specific "cults" you link to influenced German behavior specifically. Why, out of all the cults worldwide that received media attention, did this these specific ones pertain to the Scientologists in the German mind. What were the parallels in the German mind between theses specific cults that you mention and Scientology. Were the parallels discussed in the German press and did the parallels influence legislation, for example? Can you give references to this in the German press? If you are mentioning these cults just as general examples, then their mention is inflammatory, especially as the articles you link to are not neutral or well sourced. Also, I suggest that you not attack the editor by name calling like "remarkably myopic perspective". The is not civil and is uncalled for. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

you've been given a link to the source, please go and read it, the paper could not be more specific. Voxpopulis (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And no, I did not insult you, I asked you a question, if the answer is yes, then I believe it to be shortsighted, that's my opinion, it's not an insult. Voxpopulis (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I did read it. Do not make comments about editors, whatever you think of them or there ability to think. That is not civil, whether or not you use names is immaterial. I advise you to stop. With the addition of all that material from 1996, I think the sentence about the poll that follows the statement about German hysteria needs to be removed, as it is dated 10 years later and is somewhat of a non sequiter. It does not relate time-wise. So much focus on 1996 throws the article out of wack. Some discussion of why those particular sects are mentioned is needed, otherwise their mention is gratuitous. This is especially necessary as the wikilinks are to disreputable articles. Perhaps what Voxpopulis wants to do is focus exclusively on 1996. The name of the article could be changed to Scientology in Germany in 1996. Would that be satisfactory, Voxpopulis? —Mattisse (Talk) 03:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I dislike your tone, and have noted the manner in which you choose to polarize this situation becasue your psychology deems it necessary to present me as a pariah. The significance of events in 1996 appears to have passed you by, however, given time additional relevant material will be added to cover other periods. Why do you want to limit the scale of the article? This is not how wikipedia works and these are not the principles upon which it has been built. It appears you have decided what it is that constitutes the finished article and what should be in it, I find your approach shockingly ill informed. Voxpopulis (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Once again, Voxpopulis, I must remind you to refrain from personal comments and attacks. It is considered WP:UNCIVIL to speak as you are doing above. The policy at Wikipedia is no personal attacks so I must ask you to stop making them. Comment on the material, not my motivations. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And it's not WP:GF of you to discuss me the way you have with another editor. Voxpopulis (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, unless Geometry guy or someone else expresses a cogent reasoning why we need to have the "Unification Church, ISKCON, Children of God, and the Divine Light Mission", and "the Waco Siege in 1993, Order of the Solar Temple associated murders and suicides in Canada and Switzerland in 1994, and the 1995 Aum Shinrikyo incidents in Japan" mentioned in this article, I will remove this addition and restrict the information to what pertains to the article topic, i.e. the enquête commission's findings on Scientology. At the moment, I don't see a consensus to have these lists in this article, and they were not presented in directly relation to our topic in the source – they were presented in direct relation to the enquête commission, which covered NRMs generally, and were part of the explanation why the German Parliament saw the need for such a commission. Jayen466 11:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion removed from this talk page

For those unaware, a large portion of the article discussion has been removed from this talk page. This does not mean that it did not take place. Voxpopulis, in particular, may not be aware that User:Geometry guy made extensive comments which were responded to by User:Jayen466. If this becomes an issue, we can ask User:Geometry guy to replace the comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No information has been removed. The comments are here and Jayen's responses are here. I would never deliberately remove active comments from talk pages. Please pay better attention and assume good faith. Geometry guy 09:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith towards me also, Geometry guy. Do not assume that I welcomed being confused by your behavior. As another editor was saying User talk:Jayen466 did not have to make any editing explanations on the talk page, I looked for them and could not find them in the talk page confusion. Looking in the article history, I concluded they had been removed. That was inaccurate. They had not been removed. My anxiety and discomfort which I now experience with this article prevented me from perceiving accurately. However, I was not imputing any bad faith to you. I am just not as sophisticated as you nor as technically proficient. Any mistakes I make are unintentional. I am doing my best in the face of the confusion your entrance into this article caused me, and my best is not good enough. I will have no further involvement with this article, as I do not want to risk being accused of not not having good faith again. I hope that my removing myself from this article will allow you cease suggesting that I am not acting in good faith. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on my talk page. My response above was unnecessarily brusque, for which I apologize. It was not intended as an accusation, and I have complete confidence that your mistake was unintentional. Geometry guy 19:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Logical flow

These edits disrupt the logical flow of the argument. What we have now reads

The legal status of Scientology in Germany is currently unresolved.[11] (okay) The German government does not consider the Church of Scientology to be a religious or philosophical community[11] and has maintained that Scientology is a profit-making enterprise, rather than a religion.[12][13] (beg pardon? you just said it was unresolved.) In some judicial cases, however, (however?) German courts have judged the status of Scientology to be irrelevant (that does not contradict the government thinking it's profit-making?) to their decision and have opted to leave the question open.[11] (so what?) Two points are contested: (so now it is contested again? I am confused) first, whether or not the teachings of Scientology ...

What he had before followed the logical progression in the source. It started by saying status was unresolved, listed decisions that had gone either way, then noted that many decisions avoided making a pronouncement on the issue, and then stated the views of the German government. I suggest we go back to that. Jayen466 11:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For the time being, I have changed it back an order similar to the earlier version. Although, I share your confusion; doesn't the last statement in the section contradict the first? Perhaps we could say in a sentence that although the official position held by the government is that Scientology is not a religion, it is still disputed by German courts whether it should be entitled to protection under Article 4 of the constitution. ←Spidern→ 14:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A democratic state is composed of three branches: the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judiciary. They are independent of each other. In Germany's case, the views of the government (executive) are at variance with decisions by a number of courts (judiciary). For example, while the government maintains that the Scientology organisation is a commercial enterprise, the Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg ruled in 2003 that the Church of Scientology was "not a commercial enterprise".

Oddly enough, when you "when?"-tagged the date of this judgment, which is mentioned in the German Parliament document we cite, I had great trouble finding any German media source at all reporting this decision. I found one article in the slightly alternative taz newspaper from a few days before the result, saying that it would be an influential test case and that it looked like Scientology might win it, and then practically nada on the day the result was announced, and the days after. I had to cite a Catholic archdiocese radio station to get a secondary source confirming the date.

As the parliament document indicates, the courts generally have left the question open whenever they could. Where any decisions were made, they were invariably appealed. The 2008 USSD religious freedom report mentioned that "nationally binding legal decisions on the many [Scientology-related] issues before the courts remained years away." The same report also said "the U.S. Government ... requested that the [German] Government implement or encourage the states to apply immediately all court rulings in favor of minority religious groups."

Delays happen in the German court system. In 2008 Germany was fined by the European Court of Human Rights because in a case involving another NRM, the German Supreme Court (Federal Constitutional Court) took a full 11 years to rule on a complaint, finding in 2002 that the German government had defamed the group in the 1970s and 1980s and that in doing so it had violated its own constitution. Twenty years elapsed between the original events and the final Supreme Court judgment. Let no one say that the Germans are sticklers for punctuality.

So the point is, basically, that the executive and the judiciary can be, and sometimes are, out of sync. Jayen466 18:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh and just as a note. German courts are not bound by precedents, so if another court rules that Scientology is a religion the case would propably go one step higher on the ladder. That means that the whole case won't be completely resolved until it goes to the Constitutional Court as Scientology opponents will want to have a revision of the court's decision if it says that S. is a religion and vice versa. -- anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.31.95 (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Seiwert: some context for the hsyterical reaction to Scientology in Germany and why it is relevant to the article.

By way of clarfying the currently disputed edit, let me state that it has nothing to do with negative "framing", which I believe is Jayen's concern. Let's look at the reasoning behind the inclusion of the Seiwert material.

• Source states clearly that the comission was formed to deal with new religious movements and "above all the Church of Scientology".
• In rationalising why Germany ended up in a position where Scientology was "percieved as a major threat to the State and society by the German public" Seiwert provides background context.
• Because this article is called Scientology in Germany the background information Seiwert provides is extremely relevant in helping the general reader (someone without any knowlege of new religious movements: of which Scientology is one) in understanding why there was such a strong backlash against Scientology in Germany.
• Seiwert states explicitly: "At that time, a number of new religious movements [were] introduced into Germany, among them Unification Church, Scientology, ISKCON, Children of God, and the Divine Light Mission. These five movements became generally known as youth religions, a term coined by the late Rev. Friedrech-Wilhelm Haack who was the first and most influential critic of new religions in Germany"
• Seiwert states that: "new religious movements recieved attention periodically in the media, particularly after the mass suicide by members of the Peoples Temple in 1978
• Seiwert then presents examples of NRM media coverage in the early 1990's that contributed to a rising sense of "hysteria" about NRMs in Germany, and he states that "the main focus of this hysteria became the Church of Scientology".
• This "hysteria" culminated, in 1996, with the initiation of the Enquete Commission, therefore there is a direct correspondence and an explicit relationship (now return to point one).

I fail to see why this material should be viewed as negative, when, in an encyclopedic context, it is highly informative for the general reader. The drive to obscure context by attempting to disassociate Scientology in Germany from a general consideration of the sociological conditions that led to the German publics hostile reaction is not helpful at all. We should also note that Seiwert makes another observation which could perhaps be added:

• "Public opinion almost exclusively relied on information provided by the sect experts of the major churches and counselling centers".

If this material continues to be disputed I would like to proceed to the next step in dispute resolution. Voxpopulis (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

On Content:

• I do not know why the material about Scientology being viewed as a cult or sekt was removed in this disputed edit, Voxpopulis. I think a paragraph is warranted to briefly explain (if it's possible) the central tenets of Scientology, and how it is viewed in other countries. Otherwise, readers will not know what is so objectionable about its spread in Germany.
• If there was concern in Germany that many new cults/religious movements/sects were springing up around the same time, and Scientology was among them, and a reliable source says that the people or government of Germany responded to these new religious movements, that appears to be a valid point to be included in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• What's up with the reference section code? It looks very wonky on my browser. There are two columns; one has 2/3 of the references, the other has the rest, and they're both on the left half of the screen. --Moni3 (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Moni says: "I think a paragraph is warranted to briefly explain (if it's possible) the central tenets of Scientology, and how it is viewed in other countries."

• I do not object to this at all, what I found objectionable was the framing. If we are going to represent how Scientology is viewed in other countries, why not include also those that have resisted Scientology's efforts to obtain validation as a religion? Let's be careful not to present this exclusively as an instance of state persecution of an NRM, present the facts and let the readers decide. And, for the record, I would like to state that I personally do not dispute the issue of Scientology as religion, I believe it is just that. Voxpopulis (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Let me clarify that I was envisioning something very basic: "Scientology was formed in 19xx by Person x in Location x. It's central tenets include a, b, and c. Since the year it started, it has spread to xx countries and claims to have xx followers. Controversies have arisen in country h, j, and k over the following issues..." That appears to be neutrally worded.
• I'm reading the Seiwert article, and I wonder if some overall details are being left out. The increased concern about sects in the 1990s came about due to the unification of East and West Germany, which left an "ideological vacuum". The media played the fears of German people about the dangers of sects, and the Seiwert article connects Scientology to other cults of concern in Germany at the time. Right now the terminology in the article is that the German media "dealt with themes". This appears to be very timid wording when the article mentions the German public was exhibiting a "hysteria" about new religious movements. --Moni3 (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the information about how Scientology is viewed elsewhere should be restored. As for the other points, I am in favour of mentioning that there was general concern about NRMs in Germany, as there was in many other countries, and that an enquete commission was set up to deal with the perceived problem. (The Commission actually concluded that there was much less of a problem than assumed.) These are all relevant points. What I think is over the top is the long roll call of NRMs that have nothing in common with Scientology, especially the gratuitous mention of the Solar Temple suicides, the Waco tragedy, and the Aum Shinrikyo subway attacks. The source mentions these to establish the historical and political context of the commission, and why it was set up. It is appropriate to mention these events in that context. But this goes beyond the context we need to establish here, in this article. People accessing this article are not expecting to learn here that Germany was concerned about the deaths that occurred in Waco and at the other cult-related incidents.

On the other hand, all the parts of the source that actually are specifically about Scientology, e.g. "the Great Scientology scare" on p. 87, have been neglected. To sum up, I do not object to the source, I object to including material not presented by the source in relation to the article topic, while excluding the specific information the source actually has on the article topic. (Of course, perhaps Voxpopulis was still going to get round to including that latter material.) So, I would like to shorten the context, remove Waco, Solar Temple and Aum Shinrikyo, and instead add the specific material on Scientology that the source has. Jayen466 14:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Jayen, the Seiwert article, which I can email you if you contact me, connects the Solar Temple and Japanese subway attacks to Scientology by saying, cogently, that the media stoked the fears of the German people by reporting on these organizations. Somehow, the focus became Scientology. That's a valid connection to make. --Moni3 (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, and I will take you up on it (I can see a few of the relevant pages in google books at the moment). Now, as for the content question, I see what you are saying, but note that the source says, specifically, that the hysteria engendered by these events somehow became focused on Scientology. That is how the source relates these events to Scientology, and it remarks that the reasons for this transfer of focus bear closer inspection (bottom of page 86). That is not how it reads in our article at all. Jayen466 14:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned in the previous section that "given time additional relevant material will be added to cover other periods", this includes what happened during and after the commission activities, discussed elsewhere Seiwert. Again, I disagree with Jayen's assessment of the inclusion of Seiwert's mention of media coverage of other NRMs that effectively fueled hysteria that was ultimately directed towards Scientology. This is what happened, the connection is unfortunate, but it is extant. Voxpopulis (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, then let's expand this section and present the material in the context that Seiwert presents it in. Jayen466 19:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

By all means, I was actually trying my utmost to be concise, the purpose was not to alter the context, as you seem to suggest, and two editors here appear to share the same reading of Seiwert's point so I'm still not sure what you are taking issue with. Voxpopulis (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the section to add the major points that Seiwert makes specifically about Scientology. I haven't as yet evaluated the Kent paper I added to the external links today, but I daresay that the section could now benefit from the viewpoints of a scholar more critical of Scientology, and more sympathetic to the German government's stance, than Seiwert is. So I suggest we look at including some points from Kent's paper as well. Jayen466 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Some more sources

• {{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/scientologists-declare-war-on-nazi-germany-1359060.html|title=Scientologists declare war on 'Nazi' Germany |last=Karacs|first=Imre|date=October 19, 1996|work=The Independent|publisher=Independent News and Media|accessdate=2009-02-18}}
• {{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/stars-attack-germanys-stance-on-scientology-1282451.html |title=Stars attack Germany's stance on Scientology |last=Karacs|first=Imre|date=January 10, 1997|work=The Independent|publisher=Independent News and Media|accessdate=2009-02-18}}
• {{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/angry-germany-points-to-the-past-1282586.html |title=Angry Germany points to the past|last=Karacs|first=Imre|date=January 11, 1997|work=The Independent|publisher=Independent News and Media|accessdate=2009-02-18}}
• {{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/germany-is-harassing-scientologists-says-us-1285857.html |title= Germany is harassing Scientologists, says US |last=Barber|first=Tony|date=January 30, 1997|work=The Independent|publisher=Independent News and Media|accessdate=2009-02-18}}
• I've found two pieces of analysis from The Economist online, originally from August 1996, and February 1997

MartinPoulter (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, those are great. Jayen466 14:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Date of figures given

Since the official figures are disputed by the Church of Scientology, I think that it is noteworthy that it has reported the same figure for the last ten years. I therefore disagree with the rationale behind this edit. What do people think about this? ←Spidern→ 14:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to make the point that figures haven't increased? If so, we would need a source for that. Otherwise, I don't see the point in saying, they said it was 30,000 in 1996, and they said it was 30,000 in 2004. (Sources that specifically say that numbers haven't increased are available, if I recall correctly.) Cheers, Jayen466 14:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The dates of both figures are reliably-sourced. It can be inferred from the two same figures given at different times that the figures haven't changed. Although neither source states that the claimed number of members has stayed the same, it could be argued that ascertaining as much is a simple logical deduction which requires no further sourcing. However, if you can find a source that makes the above deduction for us, then it would obviously be preferable and we'll use that instead. ←Spidern→ 14:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got a source that makes the above deduction based on the Church's 30,000 claim (note that such claims sometimes have a long shelf life in the press), but there is a source somewhere that says the BfV thinks numbers have not grown. ;-) Jayen466 15:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Jayen466 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

UN criticism

I do not see mention of the UN criticism of Germany's harassment of Scientology and Scientologists. It was the UN Human Rights or somesuch commission and Germany was taken to task in at least one of their board meetings. It is available online and I had inserted it in the main Scn article quite some time ago. I will see if I can find it. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thisis what I am talking about. There should be quite a lot available on this and the UN had stern words for Germany, I believe. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. There is a brief mention of this right at the end of the article. We can expand it with your source and any others we find. Jayen466 21:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

UN site search. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is very wimpy-washy (it seems a prelim report following the visit to Germany, not a finding of the Commission) but gives a good overview of the positions of both sides in Germany and the use of the term "sect". --Justallofthem (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany (Transferred)

Due to a recent content dispute, I am watching this article as an admin, and not a content contributor. All articles relating to Scientology are on article probation. You removed referenced material from the article. While you also added referenced material, I urge you to use the article talk page from now on to discuss content disputes and different interpretations of sources. I also urge you to be more than civil in your discussion on the article talk page. Your changes may be incorporated to factor in all reliable sources and points of view. Please note that WP:3RR often does not apply to articles on probation, and 1RR often replaces it. --Moni3 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The referenced material was wrong referenced, i stated that:

"No boycott calls by germans: american homosexuals like Kevin Naff called for boycott. Read the reference." And that has nothing to do with germany. So i removed it.

I am german, i´ve seen a lot of the world and i know the situation here, and more, i can read german infos. There are a lot of wrong statements made probably by scientology members about germany. But i´m not investing hundreds of hours to correct it. Wispanow (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and it belongs on the talk page of Scientology in Germany. Unfortunately, even though you may have personal experience seeing the opposite of what a reference states, that does not allow you as a user to remove it. You can counter it with another reliable source, however. Please discuss your problems with the content on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read carefully: it is not the personal experience, it is that i can read german and the reference is WRONG cited. And there is no sense making a discussion about totally clearly wrong things. Wispanow (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read just as carefully: these issues need to be brought to the attention of editors on the article talk page. People are currently working on this article, discussing its sources and the information within. If you know that a source is not reliable or has not been reliably translated, that should be brought to the attention of the editors who are working on it: those who probably inserted the incorrect information. Articles on probation get that way because communication about the material is absent or has deteriorated into edit reverts and name calling in edit summaries. If the information is inaccurate, show how it is to the editors on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Done it. Wispanow (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised to read that I am supposed to have misrepresented a source. The cited source, Die Zeit, states:

1996 hatte die Junge Union zum Boykott gegen den Thriller "Mission: Impossible" mit Cruise als Hauptdarsteller aufgerufen. Gleiches wiederholte sich bei Travoltas Liebesstory "Phenomenon".

To wit:

In 1996, the Junge Union had called for a boycott of the thriller "Mission: Impossible", starring Cruise. The same happened with Travolta's love story, "Phenonemon".

The "Junge Union" is the youth organisation of the Christian Democractic Union, one of the main German parties. Also note this CNN article, stating

The U.S. State Department Thursday backed claims by Scientologists of discrimination in Germany with a report that warns businesses or artists associated with the group may face government-approved discrimination and boycotts.

Any objection if I reinstate this material? It seems adequately sourced. Actually, it's occurred to me that we could add Gandow's calling Cruise the Goebbels of Scientology to this picture box as well. It is true that it is a soundbite, but it is one that was literally reported around the world, and Gandow reaffirmed and repeated his judgment when questioned about it by the press. Jayen466 01:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection. Seems reasonable. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable source needs to be removed

The following has been added to the article as a reference: http://www.whyaretheydead.net/Clearwater/Antje_Victore.htm However, it is not a reliable source per WP:RS and should be removed. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we return to the 19 Feb version. The lead has now inexcusably dropped any mention of German court judgments finding in favor of Scientology's status as a religion (sourced to a document off the German Parliament website), and it has dropped any mention of the well-documented US government criticism of Germany, ascribing this criticism to unnamed "critics" in the US instead. One significant addition has been that the rightfulness of the asylum case was contested later on in the German press, and that Caberta travelled to the US to make her allegations. I suggest including a modified version of this, based on the Stern articles if originals can be found, as well as on the cited SP Times article: [9]. The SP Times article has been very selectively cited at present, putting mainly the German side. Incidentally, I am not aware of the US having withdrawn their decision to grant asylum, of their having reopened the case, or indeed of any further discussion in the US media of the German allegations that several letters describing unfavourable employment conditions for Scientologists in Germany had been written by Scientologists.

If there are any translation issues with German sources, I can help clarify those; I am fully bilingual. Jayen466 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The unreliable sources need to be removed, as well as any information that they are sourcing that is not sopported by other sources. I agree if the "originals" can be found, that would be fine. The SP Times article seem good. It seems to mostly quote what the German official said, as I recall, without commenting on the veracity of much of it. I have had no problem with your judgment nor your willingness to cooperate with other editors, so I trust you judgment in restoring the articles sources to a reliable condition. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I made a minor edit to the introduction, which makes a misleading statement: since it is not the US government as a whole that criticizes Germany's opposition to Scientology, the wording should be changed to reflect this. Instead of "Germany has been criticized over its stance towards Scientology, notably by the United States," it now reads "Germany has been criticized over its stance towards Scientology, notably in the United States." Ejnogarb (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, it is the US government as a whole. The United States Department of State is the foreign ministry of the US government and represents it in international affairs. It speaks for the government. Please read the Religious Freedom Reports given under External links, which clearly refer to the actions and views of the US government, especially in the last section. Every year these reports have contained criticism of the German stance (you can see the earlier reports in Wikisource), as did the US Human Rights reports. Or see this 1997 article: "For the past four years, the US State Department has mildly criticised Germany for its treatment of Scientology, which first gained widespread attention when jazz musician and Scientologist Chick Corea was banned from performing at government-sponsored events in Germany." Or see the NY Times article, "On the basis of the I.R.S. ruling, the State Department formally criticized Germany for discriminating against Scientologists. The German Government regards the organization as a business, not a tax-exempt religion, the very position maintained for 25 years by the American Government." Or see the sourced quote in the final section, by the US State Dept. spokesman: "We have criticized the Germans on this" or this Associated Press article: "The U.S. government, which has extended Scientology tax-free status as a religion since 1993, has criticized Germany's treatment of the Scientologists" or this Independent article: "the United States government, which in the past had expressed criticism of Bonn's heavy handed treatment of the church" ... could I ask you to self-revert? I appreciate your commenting on the talk page, but please, next time discuss and check if such a major statement is sourced before changing the article. Jayen466 17:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

After reading the external link, I agree with you. I think that the most appropriate wording could therefore be: "notably by the U.S. State Department" or "by the United States government." I think we should avoid blanket statements that seemingly include every U.S. citizen. For example, in this same introduction, it says that the German government, not Germany, is opposed to Scientology. Also, maybe the external link should be incorporated into the article as a citation after the sentence. Ejnogarb (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I was just looking through the Religious Freedom reports; the most explicit criticism I think was in the 1999 Religious Freedom Report:

Section III. U.S. Government Policy

U.S. government officials have discussed with state and federal authorities U.S. concerns about the violation of individual rights posed by sect filters. U.S. officials made the point that the use of a sect filter to prevent persons from practicing their professions, solely based their beliefs, is an abuse of their rights, as well as a discriminatory domestic business practice. U.S. officials made this point clear at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Conference in Warsaw in 1998, during numerous meetings between U.S. embassy staff and federal and state officials, and during a visit to Germany in March 1999 by individuals from the State Department's Office of the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, the Congressional Helsinki Commission, and the U.S. Institute for Peace.

In an effort to promote a dialog between German authorities and representatives of the Church of Scientology, the U.S. Embassy set up appointments in March 1999 in Bonn and Hamburg for a lawyer for Scientology with two members of the Bundestag, a member of the Hamburg state parliament, and the head of the working group on Scientology in the Hamburg Interior Ministry. U.S. embassy staff at the minister-counselor level encouraged the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other ministries to meet with the attorney for Scientology, and the Deputy Chief of Mission intervened with the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs policy planning office. However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well as other Federal Ministries decided not to receive the lawyer.

I think you are right that it is more precise to say the "US government", so I propose we go ahead and say that. I also agree it makes sense to add a citation to this statement, even though it is in the lede; it's clearly counterintuitive, and we can't expect that future readers will look through all the citations in the article proper. Jayen466 17:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the wording to "United States government." Would you assign it the appropriate link? Ejnogarb (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, will try to identify and add the most suitable link(s). Cheers, Jayen466 18:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced comments by Scientologists

Regarding this edit, I think the mention of Rathbun's name is not well executed and probably unnecessary; the reader will not know who he is. I also think that the comments by expatriate Scientologists reported in the SP Times article should be restored to reflect the overall balance of the SP Times article, which gave both sides a fair hearing. Jayen466 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also be in favour of omitting mention of the Scientologist by name; the name does not add anything here, and I doubt she is notable enough to ever have an article (WP:ONEEVENT would seem to apply). How do other editors feel? Jayen466 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• [10] Jayen466 14:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

POV, only one-sided citations

I added templates to explain that this article only shows the view of scientology, a negative point of view of the freedom of religion in germany.

There are so many POV, wrong citations: for example:

1. The "Junge Union" is not and never was and never will be part of the government.
2. It is obvious, that some german politicians don´t like scientology. But is this a very special german thing? Do ALL american or british politicians like scientology or don´t care about? And why is every politician, and every single speech, much more important if it states something negative than positive about the freedom in germany?
3. It is obvious, that scientology acts like an organisation and religion in germany. Why not decribing the freedom of scientology in germany?
4. The central reference 1 is only a short analysis in case of laws. A point of view itself, only listing facts, which could be stated here.
5. It is imho the only "religion" in germany, which states something about discrimination.

Because there are no positive statements here, and scientology is acting with a lot more freedom in germany then in some other states, i can´t see any neutrality. Wispanow (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In other countries boycott is not worth metioning it [11][12], in germany a single speech by young students is a thread to the freedom of religion? I can only see POV here. Wispanow (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The article does not say that the Junge Union is a part of the government (it is the youth organisation of the governing party in Germany). But we do have a reliably sourced statement that the US has warned that "businesses or artists associated with the group may face government-approved discrimination and boycotts" in Germany. We also have an internationally renowned British scholar of religion (Barker) stating that Germany has gone further in curtailing Scientologists' civil rights than other countries. The "central reference" you are referring to has been compiled by the Scientific Services staff of the German Parliament – surely it is an authoritative source?

So what we have here are the viewpoints of the US government, of British and German scholars, and the German Parliament; not the viewpoints of Scientologists.

If you want positive statements on Germany's policy reflected in the article, please bring reliable sources making such statements. For one, as I said above, we should do some work on evaluating and, if appropriate, incorporating the Kent paper; Kent is known for being sympathetic to the German government. But let us also remember that he is just one scholar, although a notable one, and it is a fact that positive statements on Germany's stance are harder to find than critical ones, at least in the non-German media. Jayen466 16:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the boycott examples in other countries you linked to, note that the examples you give seem to be individuals calling for boycotts. This is not the same as when it is a nationwide youth organisation of a major political party currently forming a nation's government. Jayen466 16:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Positive information about Scientology should not be the objective in this article, just as defaming or slandering Scientology should also not be an objective. A neutral balance of views on how Scientology has affected Germans, and how it is seen in Germany should be what this article is about. It is in that light that discussion on the unbalanced tag should be considered. --Moni3 (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

1. The "Junge Union" is independend from the parties...
2. and is regional organized. There was no nationwide call from the "Junge Union" for boycott, but by few individuals.

Scientology enjoys freedom and justice in germany, that is the main fact. And, many germans, and some politicians, don´t like scientology. Is this so much different from other countries?????????? Wispanow (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Wispanow, it is different. The sect filter applied to employment in business and government as well as to political participation is pretty unique and has been condemned by the US and UN. Scientologist artists not being allowed to play at state-sponsored events because of their beliefs, intelligence services spying on Scientologists, attempts by the state to prevent Scientologists forming associations or to have existing associations disbanded (with such attempts later overturned in court), these are not common occurrences. It does not matter whether these measures are justified or not, they are just not common, and there are plenty of sources remarking on Germany's stance being unusual, from the Washington Post calling it "disturbing" to Eileen Barker saying that Germany has gone further than any other country in abrogating Scientologists' civil rights, to Seiwert speaking of (and citing others speaking of) a Scientology "hysteria" in Germany, where Germany's 5000 Scientologists have become the quintessential "sect" in public discourse, endlessly rehashed as a topic of overriding national concern in the media. As for the Junge Union boycott calls having been the work of some individuals, this is not borne out by the prominent positioning of the topic on the Junge Union website, which draws express attention to the influence of Scientology celebrities, and the 2007 Resolution of the National Council of the Junge Union, which asks German CDU members in influential media positions to ensure that "Scientologist celebrities will no longer be given a platform in Germany." Jayen466 11:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits

[13]

• There was widespread reference to an "attempt to ban" Scientology. It was more than a discussion, because the BfV was asked by the interior ministers to start collecting evidence for the case. When insufficient evidence was found, the attempt was dropped, and this was widely reported by the media in those terms: [14][15][16][17][18] Also see clear German references to "Versuch, Scientology verbieten zu lassen", or Der Spiegel speaking of a "failed attempt to ban Scientology in late 2007". Jayen466 11:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• I don't see what is POV or a miscite about saying that Cruise and others have been subject to boycott calls. Sources say he has: [19][20] I don't think the tags in the picture caption are justified, including the second "lopsided" one. Gandow made the comment, it was reported around the world, even as far away from Germany as Asia and Oceania. <shrug> Jayen466 11:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Wispanow, about this edit, could you please explain your concerns about the marked passages? Jayen466 13:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

@Jayen: no time now, i answer you in some hours. Wispanow (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I have rephrased the sentences concerned. I have also now added an express mention that Scientology is legal in Germany and free to operate; I agree that that deserves mention. Jayen466 13:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Camps

One thing that Germans are very concerned about is their belief that Scientology operates forced labour camps (Rehabilitation Project Force). They have warned US officials that such camps are operated on American soil, and US officials have not taken these claims seriously. Kent supports the German view, as he is also very critical of the RPF, but then again Kent's assessment of the RPF has been criticised by other scholars who question Kent's methods (for example, it is claimed that his research is based solely on the testimony of ex-Scientologists), and other academics have come to different conclusions about the nature of the RPF. But I think this particular concern, which is more widely reported in Germany than in the States, deserves mention. Jayen466 13:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Just doing research, there is an interesting thought expressed in this New York Times article: "German officials rail against the Scientology movement, because they fear it is a totalitarian movement growing, like the Nazi party, from inconsequential beginnings -- even though the official response smacks of the Nazi era's authoritarianism." I think this might be worth mentioning as a representative second voice encapsulating perceptions in the US, after the Washington Post quote (i.e. at the end of the first para of the Criticism section). Thoughts? Jayen466 14:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally

Most important:

This [21] article is about Germany-Harassment

not Scientology-harassment in Germany. It mainly lists negative facts of freedom and justice and searches for the very few racism in Germany. I have tagged some of the sentences, which means half of the article.

Rechtsstaat and limited german Politicians

Germany is a Rechtsstaat (state of law/Rights), where the power of politicians is strictly limited by, in imho comparison to other countries, highly independent judicial system.

That means:

- Courts are working excellent

- Police is working good

- Politicians are approximatly as corrupt and money-grabbing as in other western countries like UK, USA or France. Probably a little more dumb. ;-) Some of them sometimes want to get a "stronger" profile or simply a broad attention, and surely they can get it by mentioning something about Scientology. This, especially in a pre-election phase, is unimportant and irrelevant for Wikipedia.

That means:

Politicians and their decisions are not as important as in USA, because their decisions and laws are often removed by a highly independent judicial system. Which can be done by everybody who concerns this, totally free. Sorry about that, but anno 1776, America had probably the best judicial system, but only 50 years later, Germany and many other european nations had minimum reached that level, and due to the two world-wars Germany now has imho probably the most improved judicial system of the world.

That means even more: Most of their speeches, and many of their decisions, are unimportant and irrelevant for a size-limited Wikipedia.

POV, Neutrality, Balanced view

Listing facts does not help. About facts and references:

- Did you know, that George w. Bush is a mass-murderer, a liar and a war criminal? [22] [23] Two references! Now quickly, include it on the Bush-Page. Don´t you think this is balanced, a neutral point of view?

A balanced, neutral point of view, which want to explain something without writing a book with minimum hundreds of pages, can´t list every fact, because it takes too long to explain that. Wikipedia is size limited. Period.

Answers

- Primary Americans have called for a boycott of Tom Cruise movies. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] I mentioned other things about the boycott and the "Junge Union" above.

As long as a statement of the boycott calls along with the picture is not added in the american article of Scientology, i reject a statement here and will delete it, because of violation of neutrality and balanced view, simply Germany harassement. Period.

- Camps are only a small point under several more important things concerning the violation of human rights.

- It was a discussion to ban scientology by at first attempt to collect data, undertaken by a few politicians, widely quickly contradicted even by many (a majority?) of other politicians and quickly dropped.

Normally not anything worth mentioning!!!

Texas seems to make a REAL ATTEMPT to ban scientology. This too is not mentioned in the american article.

Unless there is adequate mentioning of this fact in the american article, i will delete this section due to violation of neutrality and balanced view and summarize its content in a few sentences and add it to another. Period.

Introduction instead of Accusation

This is worse. Not an introduction, but an accusation. I will prepare something in the weekend. Wispanow (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wispanow, we cannot suppress information you don't like. For example, you argue that Germany's attempt to ban Scientology is not worth mentioning. But it was prominent, widely reported international news. You say that an opinion expressed in the Washington Post needs balancing, because you disagree with it – but this is an opinion that a German scholar has quoted as representative of opinions expressed in the American media. Don't tell us that you diagree with what reliable sources say, but bring sources to the table that comment on the status of Scientology in Germany.
• I strongly protest the wholesale tagging of reliably sourced statements throughout the article, even simple statements of fact. Jayen466 13:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• You have also inserted unsourced material which is plain wrong. The attempt to ban Scientology was announded in December 2007, and its cancellation was announced in November 2008 – that is nearly a year, not three days, as your unsourced edit claims. Your unsourced addition "Because Scientology or its members or believers did not call the courts, the actual status wether the organisation is a religious organisation or a commercial enterprise and the not directly according tax-exemption is unresolved" is complete fiction, there have been dozens of court cases on exactly this issue, many of which are mentioned in the article. Jayen466 13:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have just spent 20 minutes looking through google news to find references in reliable sources to Texas attempting to ban Scientology or reverse its tax-exempt status, and have found none among the search hits. Yet there are hundreds of references in google news to the abortive ban attempt by Germany. Jayen466 14:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Note on admin action to remove tags

• Oh, gosh what a mess. Ok, the cleanup tags are simply excessive and they don't help anything. They don't clarify any information in the article, and they turn off readers. I replaced them all with an underconstruction template.

• Wispanow, the tagging simply does not help. I also am having difficulty understanding your objections under this subheading. Actually, I don't understand much of anything you have stated here. You seem to be protesting content by comparing it with information not relevant to the article (George W. Bush, Texas, Tom Cruise?). If Scientologists in Germany have a different view of what they are doing, their opinions are relevant in the article. But you must provide opposing views provided by reliable sources. If you, in fact, just swore above that you will remove cited information because you don't like it (again, your language is confusing) I'm warning you now if you do that you will be blocked.

• Jayen466, I'm sure you know the article still needs work. It as yet does not explain what Scientology is or why it might have received such a negative reaction. It has a clunky flow that keeps me from understanding this issue in full. This article may require citing and notes to the hilt. I suggest a Citations Notes format such as I used in Stonewall riots to explain some of the finer points that may be questioned or challenged by readers and editors.

• To all: Don't make this more difficult than it already is. Settle down, keep your cool, walk away from the computer and do something else before I have to start considering blocks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, using notes and actual source quotes may be of help. As for what Scientology is, I don't think we need to explain that here, as this article is about a narrow subtopic, i.e. Scientology in Germany. But as I have said, the specific points Germany finds worrying need to be brought out in more detail. Above I alluded to Scientology's supposed forced-labour camps in America and elsewhere which are causing concern in Germany. Germany also objects to specific passages in Hubbard's writings which they say undermine the principle of equality (of course, unbelievers and believers aren't treated the same in Islamic law either, but anyway ...). The Kent paper can go some way towards that, and if it's okay, I would like to do some expansion of the article on that basis.

In addition, however, please note that the following passages inserted by Wispanow:

• "there was a discussion to ban Scientology in Germany which was within 3 days considered senseless"
• "Its believers enjoy full protection of the german constitution. Because Scientology or its members or believers did not call the courts, the actual status wether the organisation is a religious organisation or a commercial enterprise and the not directly according tax-exemption is unresolved"

are unsourced and factually wrong. Here is an International Herald Tribune article that says the ban attempt was initiated in December 2007, and dropped in November 2008. The assertion that Scientologists have not taken recourse to the courts with regard to their religious status is plainly incorrect ([31] and many others – we are citing serveral court decisions affirming religious status). I am not comfortable with the article having these unsourced statements in it that are contradicted by multiple RS. Cheers, Jayen466 14:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

All articles must stand by themselves, even if they have parent articles to discuss details of Scientology. A paragraph is warranted in this article to discuss what Scientology is, what are its major beliefs, and how it is spread. This is specifically related to your comment about L. Ron Hubbard's writings that are perceived in Germany as undermining equality. Further discussion may be necessary to address how Germany views religious freedom and freedom of speech. I know that some speech is curtailed by the German government: white supremacists can get arrested for distributing information, for example. Does Germany view Scientology as a religion warranting protection, a cult of foreigners trying to take over, or something in between?

If you encounter the instance of a fact that is disputed by reliable sources (as yet not clear this has happened), that is a perfect reason for a Notes section to discuss what one source states as fact vs. what another source contradicts. --Moni3 (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As the Legal status section states, contradictory views have been offered. Some German courts have said its nature is religious, others have said it is not. Many courts have avoided making a pronouncement on the matter. The government says it is not a religion. The government asserts that is a commercial cult, and that its aims, as expressed in Hubbard's writings, are against the constitution, much like those of neo-Nazis etc – hence the idea of banning it as an organisation espousing totalitarian aims. The article touches upon those points, in the section on government surveillance and the section on the abortive attempt to ban Scientology. Jayen466 15:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In the nineties, when there was most of the controversy, the German embassy in Washington actually put up a document entitled "Understanding the German view of Scientology" on their website. The document is no longer hosted there, but is still accessible in wayback [32]. Of course, it is a primary rather than secondary source, but it may be useful if you want to get more of a handle on the background. I'll add it as an external link as well. Cheers, Jayen466 15:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Content necessary for clarity

I'm trying to participate only as an admin, but the line gets blurred with content sometimes. I'm going to make the following suggestions based on my experience as a content editor to make the article more clear, with the goal of neutrality.

• In Scientology presence in Germany, I strongly suggest including a paragraph after the first sentence that explains what Scientology is. Were I reviewing this for GA I would not pass it without that.
• Clarify where members of Scientology are in the last sentence of this section: 30,000 all over the world, in the US?
• What is missing is why Scientology is viewed with so much distrust. Starting in the paragraph that begins "Unlike the United States", you need to make clear what aspect of Scientology is seen as so threatening to Germans. I simply do not understand why the German government could be so easily swayed to distrust Scientology by sect experts. Something else is at hand that is not being divulged. Some broader force, perhaps? What else in the 1970s and 1980s helped feed this fear? Was it related to economics? The Cold War? Is German society naturally distrustful of outside belief systems? Was there something in Scientology that triggered such fear? There's a significant part of the picture that is missing.
• There appears to be a struggle here between the German recovery from Nazism and Scientology's perceived "totalitarianism". Being unfamiliar with Scientology's intimate practices, I don't understand what is totalitarian about Scientology — another good reason to give more detail about Scientology. Are there reliable sources that speak to the heart of the fear of the German people and the German government?
• The federal government of the US infiltrates organizations that promote violence and terrorism. There was a joke some years ago that there were more FBI agents in the Ku Klux Klan than there were actual believers. How many other religious/spiritual organizations are infiltrated and surveyed like Scientology? How often does this happen? Is this Germany's equivalent to the KKK? Seriously - readers need to understand why Scientology is such a hot-button issue.
• There appears to be no coverage in the article about how German Scientologists view themselves. There is some discussion of Scientology's legal opposition to the surveillance, but little comment on how Scientologists' see their own roles in German soceity.
• I think there is room to move the information around under the subheadings. Some information I think should be shifted, some joined, etc. Because this is an English article, perhaps 99% of readers will be unfamiliar with German society. Since the primary editors appear to be fluent in German. I'm concerned that they take for granted as understood some aspects of society native English speakers are unaware of. --Moni3 (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible brief explanation of Scientology Scientology was developed in the United States in 1953 by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard wrote his beliefs in a book titled Dianetics in 1950 that was originally designed to be an alternative to psychology and psychiatry. People who agreed with Hubbard started the first Church of Scientology three years later in New Jersey. Its basic beliefs are that people have forgotten their true nature, and are able to become more spiritually aware through processes called auditing and training. For donations, interested people can be audited and go through training. The financial aspect that ties donations to self-improvement in Scientology has brought controversy on the nature of the belief system, and Scientology may be seen as a religion by some governments, but as a financial enterprise by others.

I got that from quick peeks at Wiki articles. That's intended to be used as a guide of how much detail I was suggesting. I would not expect it to be used verbatim without citations, and expect if my hastily constructed paragraph there is inaccurate, that it should be changed based on what reliable sources say about Scientology. Furthermore, I just have to say that this statement in the lead of Scientology beliefs and practices is the best I have ever seen on Wikipedia: The Church of Scientology says that no one is asked to accept anything on faith . Sweet. --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh. :-) Thanks for the summary. Something along those lines might be useful for Scientology as a state-recognized religion as well. I'll try to sort out some sources. Jayen466 18:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflcited sections

I've warned Wispanow about removing cited information. Fighting this out in edits will simply not do. However, I think there is room to incorporate changes into a broader lead:

Old Lead:

Scientology has been present in Germany since 1970. It has encountered particular antagonism in Germany. The German courts have so far not resolved whether Scientology should be accorded the legal status of a religious or worldview community in Germany, with various courts coming to different conclusions. The German government does not recognize Scientology as a religion, and regards the goals of Scientology as being in conflict with the German constitution. Germany has been criticized over its suggested stance towards Scientology, notably by the United States government.

New Lead: (serious grammar issues)

Scientology has been present in Germany since 1970. The Church of Scientology is legal in Germany and freely operates there. Its believers enjoy full protection of the german constitution. Because Scientology or its members or believers did not call the courts, the actual status wether the organisation is a religious organisation or a commercial enterprise and the not directly according tax-exemption is unresolved.

Suggested Lead:

Scientology has been present in Germany since 1970. Though the Church of Scientology is considered legal in Germany, and its believers enjoy full protection of the German constitution, it has encountered particular antagonism by the German press and government. The German courts have so far not resolved whether Scientology should be accorded the legal status of a religious or worldview community and various courts have come to contradictory conclusions. The German government does not recognize Scientology as a religion, and regards some of the goals of Scientology as conflicting with the German constitution. Germany has been criticized over its suggested stance towards Scientology, notably by the United States government.

--Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mostly okay with that. Two minor quibbles:

• The word "suggested" in front of "stance" seems out of place.
• "its believers enjoy full protection of the German constitution": This is contested. US government spokesmen have said that some of the measures taken by the German government actually violate the German constitution. From TIME Magazine: "We believe," he said, "that the members of the Church of Scientology have a right to practice their religion in Germany. Some Americans have had their religious rights infringed." Other U.S. officials use harsher terms. They believe Germany is violating the spirit, if not the letter, of its own constitutional guarantees. And, says an Administration official, the Germans are conducting their "witch hunt in the absence of demonstrated illegal action by the Scientologists." The German government has in the past been found guilty by the German Supreme Court (Federal Constitutional Court) of violating its own constitution. From Sociology of Religion, a peer-reviewed academic journal: "Since these were deprecating expressions without any factual basis, the government violated the Constitution when applying them to a religious community." So I'd rather drop that clause.

Otherwise, great. Jayen466 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Much improved

I had another read of this article after over a month of not looking at it. Although I think more could be done, I was pleasantly surprised to find the article much improved - good work! I find the article more factual and informative, allowing readers to come to their own conclusions more of the time. I have some suggestions for further improvement.

It is good that my most substantial concern is relatively minor, but despite improvements, the segment

• "Unlike the United States, Scientology is not seen as a religion in Germany, but as a Sekte (cult).[7] While Scientology is generally viewed with more suspicion in Europe, Germany has been particularly antagonistic.[10]"

is still a weak point. It is not that I disagree with the facts implied by these two sentences; I only have problems with the presentation. First problem: they adopt a U.S. perspective, contrary to this being a worldwide English language encyclopedia. This is obvious in the first sentence, but more pernicious in the second: "more suspicion" than whom? Second, I repeat: source [7] does not support the claim that Scientology is seen as a sect/cult (Sekte) in Germany unlike the United States. It says, roughly:

• "Scientology was founded in 1954 by the American science fiction author Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (1911-1986). The global organization, with headquarters in Los Angeles, describes itself as a church, but critics speak of a sect/cult. In Germany, Scientology is monitored in almost all states by the Constitution. The German headquarters of Scientology opened in Charlottenburg this year."

Tranparently, the source is saying that there are critics (irrespective of nationality) who regard Scientology as a sect or cult, which is surely a correct statement. It may be that this criticism is more widespread in Germany, but a source is needed which says this. [7] does not refer to German critics at all: "In Germany" is a modifier in the next sentence.

There are still some sentence phrasing issues: care is needed when using words like "even so", "despite", "although" as they may introduce an editorial argument. I have fixed one or two instances as best I could.

Lastly, I am a bit concerned about the balance of sources. Seiwert is now used a lot, despite being personally involved in the commission. All sources have a point of view, which is not a problem as long as they are not endorsed or used with undue weight. Any analysis or opinion by Seiwert should probably be attributed. Balancing scholarly analysis from viewpoints which are less sympathetic to Scientology and/or more sympathetic to the German response would be helpful. For instance, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi's article contains an alternative scholarly view of the sect/cult background.

Good luck improving the article! Geometry guy 10:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• I also have been following the article and agree with everything Geometry guy says, especially the use of subtle words. However, there is one disparity in what Geometry guy says and reality as I see it. In the United States Scientology does not only describe itself as a church, it has legal and tax-exempt status as a church and a religion. There are people in the U.S. who think all sorts of "religious" groups are cults, including born again Christians, but those beliefs are irrelevant to a religion's (including Scientology's) legal status and ability to conduct its business. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

  I agree with this and the legal status is an important issue. I was, however, referring e.g. to critical scholarly views on religions, sects and cults. Geometry guy 12:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking in, and for the input. GeometryGuy is right about source 7. The argument sourced to it actually came out of the other source cited for these two sentences, which was then source10: it mentioned "Germany’s open hostility toward Mr. Cruise’s religion", quoted a German journalist saying that "Germany is a country of established churches, and so Scientology is viewed as a cult and, worse, totalitarian and exploitative", and added that "Europeans in general bear more suspicion toward Scientology than Americans do, but Germans are considered particularly antagonistic, owing partly to the country’s 20th-century history as the breeding ground of Nazism and, later, as a battleground between democracy and Communism."
• So this was the New York Times/International Herald Tribune and an US-centric view. Actually, come to think of it, it also simplified the situation in Europe too much -- Scientology has full recognition in Sweden, Spain and Portugal, for example, while it is banned in Greece and treated with great suspicion and animosity in France and Belgium. Looking further afield, Australia recognised Scientology as a religion 10 years before the US did (after first having banned it in a number of Australian states), and Scientology is recognised as a religious charity in New Zealand as well.
• For the moment, I've taken those two sentences out. But we have to introduce Scientology's status as a religion in the US, and the difference this represents between the American and German positions on Scientology, at some appropriate place, to put the US criticism into context. Jayen466 15:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Revised

I have added a little paragraph with historical background, in line with the above suggestions by Moni3 and GeometryGuy, and have tried to present the various different approaches to Scientology in a less US-centric way. Please review. Jayen466 16:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. You have succeeded in being less US-centric, but I have several problems with the new paragraph. The challenge is to avoid framing the article for the reader. Also, and I think this is something Mattisse has raised, this is not an article on the Scientology controversy per se, and it might be better to integrate the global background more closely with the situation in Germany. A separate paragraph does tend to frame the article. Further, the language is not neutral. The first sentence is fine, but the second sentence is hostile towards the critics in its tone ("accused of operating", "tricking its members"), and the third is correspondingly sympathetic ("borne fruit", "gained recognition"). The quote is actually Beit Hallahmi quoting Kent, and is one of the more extreme passages in the article. Neutrality is not achieved by balancing supporting material against the most extreme criticism, but by placing more weight on moderate and mainstream criticism, providing critical reasoning and not just stark views. In this respect I prefer Moni3's description of the controversy.

It may be hard to see the slightly "insider feel" that these sentences and the present approach conveys, so I invite you to look at another article on a different topic that has similar issues (only much worse): Freemasonry. It presents its topic from an insider view: "setting the record straight" about a much misunderstood and misrepresented organisation. This is particularly transparent in the way it deals with criticism of in-group bias and networking (cronyism/nepotism). Legitimate mainstream criticism is presented in an exaggerated extreme form (e.g. "Even in modern democracies, Freemasonry is still sometimes accused of being a network where individuals engage in cronyism, using their Masonic connections for political influence and shady business dealings.") and folded in with anti-semetism, consiracy theories, anti-Masonry etc. The language bristles with hostility towards any critics, and tars them all with the same brush.

Among articles involving controversial topics, "Freemasonry" is a shining example of how not to do it. It thus provides an inspiration and guidance to be as little like it as possible. :-) Geometry guy 11:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geometry guy, thanks for your response. I noticed one or two of these shortcomings myself a few days after I placed the above diff link and had done some work to remedy them in early April. I regret now that I failed to update the diff you checked. :) The version you reviewed was not the current one. For example, I had replaced the "borne fruit" with "been partly successful", which I also thought was less subliminally supportive of Scientologists. As for the more extreme criticism, when talking about Scientology in Germany, much of the prominent criticism in Germany is, in comparison to other countries, extreme, and Kent is the scholar most aligned with the German position. It is sometimes difficult to see how to keep the extreme views out, given that they are the justification for Germany's fairly severe measures against Scientologists – which German decision-makers see as merely prudent. The word "tricked" for instance is present in the source I cited ("Scientology has also been forced to defend itself from civil suits and even criminal charges, as well, with former members claiming that they were tricked into participating in Scientology and paying significant sums for the auditing courses offered by the organization." – James T. Richardson, writing in James R. Lewis, Scientology, Oxford University Press). But in general, I have argued much the same thing as you, i.e. that we have to concentrate on using the most dispassionate and authoritative sources we have, rather than the most polarised. I've just come back from a wikibreak and am still a bit slow, but I would be happy to do some work with you to get the summary section sorted, using parts of Moni3's draft as appropriate. She put the financial thing nicely.

Freemasonry: I did some copyediting of the Freemasonry article a few weeks ago. That article's problem is that too much of it is based on Masonic primary sources (a problem which this present article at least does not have), including all of the specific cronyism passage you highlight.

Another thing: Do you think we still need the neutrality tag in this article? Jayen466 18:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha - foolish me! I should of course have checked the article, not the diff, For some reason I thought there hadn't been much change in the last month. Anyway, I'm glad you spotted some of the same issues and fixed them. I'm still watchlisting this page and will be happy to help out or comment on further improvements. I take your point about the relevance of the more extreme criticism to the topic at hand. Some attribution might help. Also the reader needs to be told in some way that there are different degrees of criticism: tax-evasion is not in the same league as global domination. :-)

Concerning the tag, while there may still be concerns, the article makes a pretty good job at dealing with a tricky topic, so I would not "dispute" its neutrality. I suggest you drop it and see if anyone has reasonable complaints. Geometry guy 18:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Legal Status

I have just been looking through the legal section, and I think the following sentence should be removed.

The Federal Administrative Court of Germany in 2005 explicitly granted a Scientologist protection under Article 4.1 of the German Constitution, which declares the freedom of religion and worldview inviolate.

I read through the quoted sources, and the case made before the court was that a single individual can believe in whatever he wants without the state interfering with this belief. The judgement makes no statement whatsoever about the legal status of Scientology, but the way this statement is placed makes it appear as if one of the highest german courts explicitely ruled in favor of the organisation (which is not the case here). We clearly need to distinguish between the legal status of the organisation and the rights of an individual that follows the teachings. If you profess to be pastafarian, you are also free to do so, although it's highly unlikely you'll ever be recognised as a church either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.53.188 (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientology hate-campaign against Germany

See my edits [33] deleted by moni3 to violate neutrality and protect the racism against germany. Further my reasons given.Talk:Scientology_in_Germany/Archive_1#Generally

These reasons are valid even today. See for example [34].

Jayen466 wrotes most of this neutrality-violating campaign and Moni3 is protecting and supporting him as an admin. See for example [35]

About Jayen466 see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence:

• Jayen466 undermined discussion about sourcing issues
• Jayen466 removes sourced information critical of Scientology
• Jayen466 disrupts arbitration and cherry picks sources
• User:Jayen466 makes false claims in Arbitration case evidence
• Concern about Jayen466's interest in the POV of scientology articles
• Misrepresentation of evidence by Jayen466
• Biased Scientology related editing by user Jayen
• Jayen466 repeatedly misrepresents a key source
• Jayen466 removed academically-sourced material

IMHO Jayen466 is a scientology fan or member, see my talk page [36]. The german Wikipedia is of minor attraction to him because his texts are deleted soon.

About sources: Even Reuters is sourcing directly to Scientology, this text is neutrality violating and probably written directly by Scientology [37]. Neutrality (and Truth) is a different thing.

Hopefully Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology will ban Jayen466 from editing Scientology articles soon, as they done for Rick Ross articles. Then it will make sense to change this SCIENTOLOGY HATE-CAPAIGN AGAINST GERMANY. Wispanow (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your posting on the talk page what you consider the problems in the article. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Without discussion, there could be no article building at all. It is in this philosophy that I contacted you following your addition of the NPOV template in article space. Though you referred to comments in your edit summary, none were provided until you posted this here. If you think I'm working with Jayen466 to bend information in this article, then feel free to believe what you wish. I have no passionate thoughts about Scientology or Germany. I will do the same with any article for editors who appear to be "drive by" tagging: leaving tags in articles as a form of complaint without taking the time and effort to explain why they think the article is lacking. Explaining yourself can only assist the construction of this article. If you are upset, which I glean from your all caps bolded words, I suggest you take a few moments and dispassionately analyze what in this article makes it not neutral and just as dispassionately post it here in detail. --Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I call you to restore the tags you deleted, even the tags [[38]] where a clear reason was given.Wispanow (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Tags are stopgap measures to be used in emergencies when articles are being constructed or going through significant rewrites. They should not be used as long term solutions and serve only to confuse readers. A better solution, and the ideal solution in these Scientology articles, is to again dispassionately discuss on this page what you perceive the problems to be in the article, using sources and coming to a happy medium with the editors who hold contrasting views. I'm going to remind you once more to adhere to that garish yellow box at the top of this page. Scientology articles are under sanctions and there will be no aggressive action in the article space, or on the talk page. You may be blocked immediately for reverting another editor or communicating rudely or harshly on the talk page. You have already accused me of corruption. I urge you to discuss your issues here respectfully or your voice and your points may be unfortunately silenced. Your points may be valid, but if you are disrespectful or angry in your communications, they can not be argued if you are blocked. Seriously: take a breather. Walk away and come back when you are not upset. Escalation is not worth it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Though the Church of Scientology is considered legal in Germany, it has encountered particular antagonism by the German press and government.

Negative, neutrality violating.Wispanow (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is accurate and sourcable, then it doesn't violate neutrality. And, for what it's worth, ich bin ein Deutscher mit Vorfahren in den weniger Adligen. Ich habe den Artikel geschaffen. Ich habe den Artikel uperprüft, und habe keine Probleme gesehen. (My four years of German in high school were more years ago than I really want to admit, but I hope the above still makes sense.) Translation: I am of German ancestry (should've been clearer on that initially) with ancestors in the lesser nobility. I'm the one who created the article in the first place, and I have intermittently reviewed the development since then and found no particular problems with it. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Impressive. ;) JN466 15:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on the NPOV status of the article. I have removed the tagging of individual sentences which I believe are reliably sourced, but have retained the NPOV tag for now, although I don't think it is necessary. I have also removed various non-RS sources added by Wispanow (talk · contribs), such as http://www.scientomogy.com/boycotttomcruise.com.php http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/boycott-tom-cruise-s-war-of-the-worlds-all-other-cruise-movies.html etc. JN466 18:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Mass tagging of article

I fully protected this article for 3 days. I blocked Wispanow (talk · contribs) for three hours following the removal of cited information. Blocking is a protective measure and is not intended to be punishment.

I protected the article with the neutrality tags. Please discuss here why each tag is necessary. Editors in this article have 72 hours to find a medium so the tags can be removed. If no explanation is given for the neutrality tags in 72 hours, I'm going to remove them all once more.

Be better than civil. No warnings will be given for uncivil commentary. Keep your comments to the article only.

Do not comment on other editors or you will be blocked. --Moni3 (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Further request, with apologies for the anglocentric view, that comments on the talk page and in edit summaries are kept in English or a reasonable English translation is provided. I dislike making this request, but it's clear that abuse of ArbCom sanctions can be done in German and many editors and admins would be unaware. --Moni3 (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. My edit summary "Ich bin beeindruckt" meant "I am impressed". I didn't know John Carter knew German and was expressing my appreciation. --JN466 15:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I know it was probably harmless, but I wanted to set a precedent for future discussions. --Moni3 (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Following accusations that I am an involved adminstrator, I am bowing out of mediating the article. I have contacted User:Geometry guy who has previous experience in this article and User:Risker to inform them of these developments. Best of luck with this. --Moni3 (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The following statements are tagged with a neutrality reminder:

1. The German government does not recognize Scientology as a religion, and regards some of the goals of Scientology as conflicting with the German constitution.
2. In part, this may be related to Germany's past and its concerns over any organization perceived to seek a dominant position in society
3. Scientology is generally seen as a Sekte (cult or sect) in Germany, rather than as a religion.

Thanks for your help. Working on these articles can sometimes be a rather tricky affair. JN466 17:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the second point, that material was added at my specific request. When I first started this article, of the about 20 articles in English available on the subject, one of them prominently stated that there was reason to believe that the German governments opposition to Scientology was in part due to its not unreasonable concerns regarding what the article described as totalitarian organizations. It went on to say that the German government seems to at least have perceived Scientology as one such totalitarian organization, and, on that basis, it very much seemed to be that it made sense that the article indicate as much. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the first and third points, they are sourced, and there are many other sources available stating the same thing; there is widespread agreement on these issues, and these statements do not strike me as controversial. For example, the fact that the German government does not consider Scientology a religion is stated in a document prepared by the Scientific Services Division of the German Parliament (cited). As for suspected anticonstitutionality, this is abundantly evident from the fact that the Federal Agency for the Protection of the Constitution monitors Scientology, at the government's request. Why should any of this be contentious or non-neutral? It is centrally important and well-sourced information. JN466 22:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

@Jayen466

You were permanently blocked from editing articles about Rick Ross because of neutrality violation. I do not know, why they did not block you from editing Scientology-articles. About Jayen466 see [39]:

• Jayen466 undermined discussion about sourcing issues
• Jayen466 removes sourced information critical of Scientology
• Jayen466 disrupts arbitration and cherry picks sources
• User:Jayen466 makes false claims in Arbitration case evidence
• Concern about Jayen466's interest in the POV of scientology articles
• Misrepresentation of evidence by Jayen466
• Biased Scientology related editing by user Jayen
• Jayen466 repeatedly misrepresents a key source
• Jayen466 removed academically-sourced material

Therefore i would greatly appreciate if you not only can stop your reverting and edit-war, but also stop editing on this article. I do not think that you are currently able to have a neutral view. This is a warning. Wispanow (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, it strikes me more as a threat, and I would greatly appreciate it if you engaged in more civil behavior. You are the one who is seemingly engaged in an edit war, and I believe it would be in your own interests to seek to have some sort of agreement with your own position before indulging in such threats as the one here. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources such as these, which Wispanow (talk · contribs) has just reinserted, are not encyclopedic sources:

• http://boycottcity.org/view/index.php?itemId=325
• http://www.scientomogy.com/mi3/missionimpossible3.com.php
• http://www.scientomogy.com/boycotttomcruise.com.php
• http://www.scientomogy.com/boycott_valkyrie/
• http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/boycott-tom-cruise-s-war-of-the-worlds-all-other-cruise-movies.html
• http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/tomcruiseboycott

I believe one or two of them may also violate WP:BLP.

I understand that editors may have strong feelings about Scientology, but such conduct as displayed here by Wispanow (talk · contribs) is extremely unseemly and contributes little to project work in this topic area. JN466 21:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have to agree that none of those sources look to me even remotely appropriate. The sources explicitly criticizing Tom Cruise are of course particularly objectionable. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP Why?Wispanow (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:BLP, in particular Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources. Tom Cruise is a living person. Your sources are poor sources making extremely derogatory and offensively worded comments about him. I would really appreciate it if you would self-revert your very poorly judged edit. JN466 22:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Tom Cruise pic and text

1. A lot more boycott calls in USA than in Germany. But USA is bigger. But i see no reason to mention all of this here, it is no special thing of Germany, even Tom Cruise is not. > delete the whole sentence.
2. Pastor Thomas Gandow, a prominent spokesperson? I asked and nobody knows him. He works in and for the "schlesische Oberlausitz", a region of surely less than 100,000 inhabitants. Totally unimportant person. And i do not think "Goebbels" is appropriate and significant and therefore relevant. > delete.
3. The text is gone, the reason for the image of Cruise too. > delete. Wispanow (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Reliable sources, including the US government, Time magazine and others, have found these boycott calls important enough to comment upon them. 2. Thomas Gandow is not prominent? I am afraid you are not well-informed. There are many sources saying he is prominent: [40][41] JN466 22:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

1. The US government do not mentioning that in USA there are many more and aggressive calls for boycott and is critizised by its stance against germany even by other european countries.

2. Do you think a person who opposed Scientology and gets ONLY ABOUT 200 RESULTS in google is prominent? SORRY, YOU are not well informed. Under my real name i got 2157 results, mainly relating to my scientific work. And i am sure you do not know me.Wispanow (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

These are google news matches. The man has been in news articles all over the world. The very first one describes him as follows: "Thomas Gandow, 60, chief spokesman on religious cults for the German Protestant Church, ..." If someone is the "chief spokesman on religious cults for the German Protestant Church", this makes him a prominent figure in relation to this topic. Kindly self-revert. Thank you. JN466 22:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The relevant factor for inclusion are notability and reliability, as per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RELIABILITY. Given the amount of content related to Gandow, there is little question that he qualifies as notable. And, as a spokesperson, I would have to assume his reliabaility is pretty much similar to that of his organization, which probably is sufficient for inclusion. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Google is relating to lying Scientology propaganda. Scientologies Attack the Attacker policy. See your own source:[42]: He is not a "chief spokesman on religious cults for the German Protestant Church". He is working in the "Pfarramt für Sekten- und Weltanschauungsfragen der Ev. Kirche Berlin-Brandenburg-schlesische Oberlausitz" Wispanow (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for reference, he is the Evangelical Church's "sect commissioner" for Germany's capital, Berlin, and some of the regions surrounding Berlin. As the google news links illustrate, his comments have been quoted in the Irish, British, American, French, Spanish, Polish, Australian and Taiwanese media, just from looking at the first 20 hits or so. That is exceedingly uncommon for a German pastor, as is the coverage he has received in scholarly books, many of which take pains to point out that he is a "prominent anticultist", "an extremely committed activist in the campaign against the New Religious Movements", etc. We have to go by reliable sources, and according to these sources he is a very notable commentator. JN466 21:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

His "Cruise is Goebbels" comment was reported all over the world: [43]. If a notable spokesperson of a mainstream church in Germany makes a comment like that on Scientology that makes news all over the world, then that comment belongs in this article. JN466 21:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

<=outdent... I just shifted the image up and removed its connection to the Goebbels comment which is already well-represented in the text. I put Gandow's specific job title into the article. All the 'lopsided' tags were not necessary since the overarching tag about neutrality is perfectly sufficient to communicate the message to readers that this article has been challenged. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to have the Caberta image, too. JN466 01:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Image size should be hard coded or scaled per user?

I am wondering if it wouldn't be better for readers if the hard coded image sizes were left to be nominal thumbnail sizes. What we have now on the Tom Cruise snapshot is a hard coded width of 165 pixels. This width will not scale to accommodate various user window widths such as 800x600, 1024x768, 1600x1200 and other sizes. This means that 165 will be relatively large on small windows and relatively small on large ones. The width of the 'thumb' parameter is set by user preference (or by default) but together, the 'thumb' and 'upright' parameters scale with window width. One possibility is to use the 'thumb|upright=x' parameter which can yield smaller and larger images which also scale to match window width. Examples:

165 pixel width, hard coded

Nominal 'thumb-upright' width

Nominal 'thumb' width

'Thumb-upright' width with a 0.7 multiplier

Does that help decide which to use? Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that functionality before. I've reformatted all the pics using the upright=x parameter, rather than the hard-coded size. Does that look okay? And is there further documentation on this somewhere? JN466 19:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The image syntax parameters 'upright' and 'upright=x' are not yet well known or widely utilized on Wikipedia, but they are very briefly mentioned here: Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. What that guideline page doesn't say is that the 'upright' and 'upright=x' parameters must be used at the same time as the 'thumb' parameter or the image will appear original size. Another oddity is that 'upright' alone (no equals sign) is about 80% of thumbnail width but 'upright=1' is identical to thumbnail width. Please take a look at my sandbox test page at User:Binksternet/Upright.

In general, I like your use of the 1.5 multiplier for upright size--it looks good on my 1024x768 screen resolution. Other users with different screen resolutions should offer their opinions, though. To me, the logo of the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz seems unnecessarily large. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've dropped the logo down a bit. I'm at 1600x1200, and it looks fine. Thanks for the link. JN466 21:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality tag #2

Do we need the neutrality tag? Looking at Wispanow's edit [44], the Scientomogy sources are clearly beyond the pale; as for marking as "lopsided" the two mentions of the German government not recognizing Scientology as a religion (one of them in the lead), this strikes me as specious.

• We have a document from the German Parliament's Scientific Services Division saying the German government does not recognize Scientology as a religious or worldview community ("Die Bundesregierung hat jüngst bekräftigt, dass sie Scientology nicht als Religions- oder Weltanschauungsgemeinschaft ansehe").
• We have the New York Times saying it ("... the treatment of Scientologists in Germany remains a topic of dispute between Washington and Bonn, which has refused to recognize Scientology as a religion ... The German Government has maintained that Scientology is not a religion, but a profit-making venture.").
• We have the German government itself saying it, in their document "Understanding the German view of Scientology" which they put up on the website of their embassy in the United States: "Germany, as well as Belgium, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, Israel and Mexico, remain unconvinced that Scientology is a religion. ... Among the countries that do not consider Scientology a religion are Belgium, France, Germany ..."

Marking "Germany has taken a very strong stance against Scientology. In part, this may be related to Germany's past and its concerns over any organization perceived to seek a dominant position in society" as "lopsided" seems likewise without merit. The statements are well sourced (NYT and Oxford University Press), and we quote statements from German government officials, cited to Time Magazine, saying "Officials explained that precisely because of Germany's Nazi past, Germany took a determined stance against all 'radical cults and sects, including right-wing Nazi groups', and not just against Scientology." Unless more salient points are raised within the next 48 hours whch we can address I propose we remove the NPOV tag. JN466 01:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I already took out all those unsuitable URLs used inappropriately as references, and I took out the "lopsided" tags. All we have left from the Wispanow edit in your link is the overall neutrality tag up there at the top: "POV|date=May 2009". To me, it appears that the article has attained a neutral stance. Other editors ought to weigh on the issue of tag removal before we simply delete it. Binksternet (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like neutrality is no longer an issue. I took the NPOV tag off the article, and I'm taking this page off of my watchlist. Ping me any time a third party viewpoint is needed. Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. JN466 19:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

GA: Some points.

Hi, this is a very informative article, good work. However, I see an anomaly.

There is a reference for an article, Kent, Stephen A. (2002). "Hollywood's Celebrity Lobbyists and the Clinton Administration's American Foreign Policy Toward German Scientology". Journal of Religion and Popular Culture I (Spring 2002) but this article is not actually cited at all in the one section where it is most applicable: Criticism of Germany's Stance.

The Kent article gives a very thorough overview, so why have references, in the relevant location, been omitted thus far?

There are a number of relevant points Kent raises, which are not touched upon at all.

In the article we see the following, "Together with the churches' sect experts, private anti-cult initiatives have shaped German public opinion".

But nowhere in the final section does it mention Scientology's lobbying and public relations campaign in America:

• Several activities that Scientology undertook near the beginning of the 1990s had a significant impact later on upon a few American foreign relations issues.Ä First, it set out to improve its image with politicians and the population at large by undertaking a major public relations effort in the nation's capitol. As part of this public relations effort, a Scientology affiliate in Los Angeles was paying "almost $725,000 to a Washington-based firm [Federal Legislative Associates] to lobby Congress in 1997 and 1996" (Dahl 1998a, 14A). These lobbying efforts (many performed by the firm's managing partner, David H. Miller) eventually bore fruit during the battle between Scientology and Germany.

Kent notes that:

• Scientology's Hollywood celebrities were sufficiently influential in their federal lobbying during the Clinton administration that they influenced the American position (although not always in the direction they desired) on the American-versus-German debate over Scientology that took place between the two countries.

Also, something not mentioned, in relation to the celebrity letter, which Kent notes:

• It turned out that many of the signatories had close ties to prominent Scientology actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta (Whittell 1997).

No mention either of the lobbying (with the assistance of John Travolta) in the House of Representatives for a bill Condemning Germany which failed, the Washington Post noted:

• In case you needed reminding that congressmen are shameless groupies, consider the small mob of House members that formed around John Travolta yesterday in the Rayburn Room of the Capitol, just off the House floor.Ä There was jostling, There was staring. There was lining up for photos with the movie star who was on the Hill to meet with lawmakers, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich, on behalf of the Church of Scientology, of which he is a member (Gerhart and Groer 1998, B3).

The point is: if, in Germany, the churche's sect experts, private anti-cult initiatives have shaped German public opinion, it is accurate to mention, as Kent does, that Scientology's lobbying efforts were successful in shaping the American position on Germany's treatment of Scientology:

• In summary, as American government officials seemed to side with Scientology, German officials became convinced that their counterparts in the United States simply did not understand the nature of the organization that they were supporting.

I would suggest that the primary contributor here maybe look at this material and provide some representation of it in the appropriate location.

Keep up the good work. Sanitizer616 (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scientology in Germany/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

Apologies for the long wait, I hope a fruitful review can now take place!

Note: I am an incredibly picky editor, and in many respects the GA review will probably go beyond the norm. However, it will obviously be of considerable benefit to the article, so I hope you have no concerns with me doing this. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

Pick away; as you say, close attention is usually beneficial. JN466 12:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

07 November 2009: Apologies for drifting off in regards to reviewing. I can find nothing of particular fault with the article, and nothing that bothers me and would prevent the article passing GA. Please carry out or respond to any open points (I think there are a couple) for the good of the article! I'm encouraged to say this, however I do personally think it is important: please, if you are able, help the GA process and carry out the review of another article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Final assessment: Pass

Lead

• The lead does not adequately sum up the rest of the article, which is its purpose. It summarises primarily the legal opposition and stance of the German government, when what is should do is try to incorporate information under all headers.
• "notably by the United States government,", perhaps we could be given the briefest of context as to why the US government in particular has criticised the German stance (i.e. because the US is the country with the largest proportion of Scientologists). Not sure though how you could phrase it exactly.
  • I've had a go: [45] --JN466 12:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Fine, I can't see any casual improvement at the moment. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• I've extended the lead to give a brief summary of each section. JN466 20:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure the lead provides a balanced summary of the entire article right now. It reads primary as a protaganist/antagonist analysis, could potentially mislead the casual viewer into reaching an innacurate conclusion. Sanitizer616 (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• I think the isolated sentence at the end of the lead could be expanded upon. This section (Criticism of Germany's stance) is particularly interesting, but unfairly covered. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Scientology Controversy

• Would this not be better titled "Background", since it seems more of a background to Scientology rather than focusing particularly on the controversy that surrounds it.

- done --JN466 22:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• • The background contained very little context on the specific nature of the Scientology/Germany issue so I moved appropriate text from the Public opposition section. Sanitizer616 (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientology presence in Germany

• Similarly as above, would this section not best be titled "History"?
• "first established a base", what is "a base"? "Presence" might be preferable. *"Scientology Missions" needs a wikilink or adequate explanation, I am left with no idea of what these are and how significant they are.
  • The difference between a Scientology Church and a Scientology Mission is that a Church offers a more complete range of religious services than a Mission. On a more practical level, the Churches tend to be large and quite visible buildings in major cities (see pictures in the article), whereas a Mission might initially just be a Scientologist's home. --JN466 11:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• "major Scientology bases" same as first point, "Cities in which Scientology has a major presence"?
• "adherents", seems a very non-religious way of phrasing a "follower", which is used in the following sentence anyway.
• "Cities with major Scientology bases include" is this talking about in 2007 (as in, part of the previous sentence) or 2009. If it's the former then perhaps consider:
  • "By 2007, its German presence comprised ten Scientology Churches located in major cities, including: [the examples listed]
• "stable at that level" has been edited to remove "at that level", since both terms aren't necessary. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• "Germany's domestic intelligence service, the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, or BfV)", I'm not certain, but I'm sure the vernacular name should come before the translated name.

Goodness! After all this time! Right, thanks for your comments, I'll set to work. :) JN466 22:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've rewritten the section to address the above points, pls review. About the title, I wouldn't call it history, because many aspects of that history are covered in the subsequent sections. This section is just to give a brief overview—how long has Scientology been active in Germany, where are the main centres, and how many Scientologists are there in Germany.

• On reflection, have renamed the section "History" as you suggested. --JN466 07:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Public opposition to Scientology in Germany

• I don't think that "to Scientology in Germany" is needed (because it is part of the article title). I may need to check MoS policy though. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree; it's understood. Removed. --JN466 11:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I have moved text from the this section to Background, as it has more relevance to the latter. Sanitizer616 (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I can see what you mean, but I think I preferred it where it was. The paragraph you moved is about Germany's stance, which is part of the article topic proper; it is not really part of the generic background. But I'm relatively easy either way. --JN466 21:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I have shifted a sentence to improve the flow, it would seem to be a good idea to offer the reader an introduction to the backstory at this point, before entering into further detail, as the article does. Sanitizer616 (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
          • This sentence sequence: "Scientology is not considered a religion in Germany, but is generally characterized as a Sekte (cult or sect), or as an exploitative profit-making venture preying on vulnerable minds [3][11][12][13] as such the German government has taken a very strong stance against the organisation.[14][11] This is related to the lessons of German history ..." doesn't work for me. The "as such" is awkward, and seeks to explain the same thing that "This is related ..." seeks to explain. Can we improve this? --JN466 20:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• "popular support for banning the Church runs at 67%", awkward wording. Consider "A poll conducted by Der Spiegel in September 2008 found 67% of Germans favour a ban on Scientology".
  • Okay, done. --JN466 07:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• I've added a paragraph on a notable controversy around Scientologists offering after-school tutoring services to this section. --JN466 13:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Germany's stance

Regarding this issue raised on the talk page (my comment), surely in the interests of balance it is accurate to mention the role of the American Scientology lobby in influencing the American position on Germany's stance?

• To reiterate, I notice, Kent's article is referenced for arbitrary points elsewhere in the article, but his argument is not referenced at all in the one place it is most applicable.
• As Seiwert points out, the so called "anti-cult lobby" was effective in it's influence of the German position, this point is dealt with in the article, so why then is it unacceptable to mention Kent's analysis of Scientology's lobbying drive as one possible explanation for America's response?
• Also, regarding the celebrity letter, Time notes that Bertram Fields is the attorney for both Cruise and Travolta, and Kent observes that "many of the signatories had close ties to prominent Scientology actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta (Whittell 1997)" but again, this corelation has been ommited, despite it being note worthy. Sanitizer616 (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added a few details from Kent, as well as a mention of the Fields—Travolta/Cruise connection. --JN466 21:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Jayen, what is your reason for declining to support the inclusion of an explicit mention of the Scientology lobby and its role in the German affair? it can be supported by a verifiable source, and one line is hardly undue weight, or do you view it as a fringe theory perhaps? Are Kent's academic credentials not sufficient to allow inclusion of his view here? Sanitizer616 (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Kent is focusing on lobbying activities in 1996 and 1997, addressed to the Clinton administration. However, the U.S. Government's criticism of Germany began two or three years before that, immediately after Scientology was recognised as a religion in 1993, and it continued after the end of the Clinton administration. It was even stepped up under Bush: [46] I just think historical events have somewhat overtaken Kent's thesis – and it is very much his thesis – that the criticism in 96/97 was only due to Travolta's access to Clinton. Besides, everybody in the U.S. has their lobby; this is not specific to Scientology. It is how the US political system works. Another difference is that religious freedom and religious pluralism is a core value in the US, unlike Germany, which is dominated by two large, long-established Christian denominations. --JN466 19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Could you say how would you include this? Can you propose a wording? JN466 19:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Well, agreed, it's Kent's thesis, and lobbying is standard practice in the US. However, the historical period covered in the first number of paragraphs of the section is precisely the one Kent's thesis covers so I'm not sure about your first point. We could begin by distilling this quote: "Several activities that Scientology undertook near the beginning of the 1990s had a significant impact later on upon a few American foreign relations issues.Ä First, it set out to improve its image with politicians and the population at large by undertaking a major public relations effort in the nation's capitol. As part of this public relations effort, a Scientology affiliate in Los Angeles was paying "almost $725,000 to a Washington-based firm [Federal Legislative Associates] to lobby Congress in 1997 and 1996" (Dahl 1998a, 14A). These lobbying efforts (many performed by the firm's managing partner, David H. Miller) eventually bore fruit during the battle between Scientology and Germany." Sanitizer616 (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is, where do we put it in the timeline? The first time Scientology appeared as a topic in the State Department's human rights report on Germany was, I believe, in the 1993 report (published in 1994), predating that lobbying effort. It was mentioned each year's human rights report from then on, according to the New York Times. For the mention of lobbying to make sense, i.e. for it to have an explanatory function for the reader, we'd have to add, say, a mention that (according to Kent) 'the section of the State Department's 1996 human rights report that was harshly critical of Germany's actions towards Scientology "was written by the White House…."' Now, I can't figure out who Kent is quoting the "was written by the White House" from. The New York Times article he mentions is here: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/18/opinion/journal-clinton-s-travolta-fever.html and this does not have that sentence. The only other source he quotes in that paragraph is an American Spectator article from a newsgroup posting:

    American Spectator. 1997. "She Blinded Them With Science." (April), 15; Downloaded From an <alt.religion.scientology> posting by Felix Tilley entitled, "Halfbright, the Whitehouse, $CN, and the Germans-from TAS," on March 18, 1997.

  • There was an article of that name in the American Spectator: [47] but I can't access it. Can you?
  • At any rate, we should be careful not to add something that puts a US president at the centre of a conspiracy theory, unless it's got multiple first-class sources.
  • Another thing is that the Travolta/Clinton meeting Kent mentions was in September 1997, i.e. after the January 1997 brouhaha, and after the February 1997 asylum case decision.
  • I still think that this belongs more into Scientology in the United States than it does in this article, but we could mention the lobbying and that the 1996 human rights report in January 1997 was unusually harsh. The New York Times article mentions that too (last page). Obviously, the Hollywood letter was timed to coincide with that human rights report; Scientologists certainly knew in advance that the report was going to be tough on Germany. JN466 21:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Xenu.com has an Italian version of the article here and Google scholar has the article in English here. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The a.r.s. post that Kent cites, containing the American Spectator article, is here. I'll pop the text on the talk page. --JN466 22:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Hmm, well, in response to - "The first time Scientology appeared as a topic in the State Department's human rights report on Germany was, I believe, in the 1993 report (published in 1994), predating that lobbying effort," - Kent says, in the quote above, "Several activities that Scientology undertook near the beginning of the 1990s had a significant impact later on upon a few American foreign relations issues,". I'll have to go and look through the item again, and check the details before commenting further on this. But, on a purely technical point, I don't think we need to vet the accuracy of Kent's article, it has already (I presume) been peer reviewed, so the only question we need to ask here is whether or not it is a usable source, and personally, I believe it meets the grade; after that we are dealing primarily with points of interest, no?? Sanitizer616 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Kent clearly states: "the article argues that Scientology's Hollywood celebrities were sufficiently influential in their federal lobbying during the Clinton administration that they influenced the American position (although not always in the direction they desired) on the American-versus-German debate over Scientology that took place between the two countries."He's stating the entire Clinton era as having importance for the Scientology v Germany issue, the dates you are singling don't necessarily have any real bearing on what Kent is offering.
    • Kent notes that, "Most significantly, after the IRS/Scientology agreement, the United States Department of State now considered Scientology to be a tax-exempt religion, so it began criticizing Germany's actions against the organization and its members. Indeed, by the time that the IRS issued its agreement in late 1993, the battle between Germany and Scientology was growing in intensity."
    • Kent also states, "Several activities that Scientology undertook near the beginning of the 1990s had a significant impact later on upon a few American foreign relations issues.Ä First, it set out to improve its image with politicians and the population at large by undertaking a major public relations effort in the nation's capitol. As part of this public relations effort, a Scientology affiliate in Los Angeles was paying 'almost $725,000 to a Washington-based firm [Federal Legislative Associates] to lobby Congress in 1997 and 1996' (Dahl 1998a, 14A). These lobbying efforts (many performed by the firm's managing partner, David H. Miller) eventually bore fruit during the battle between Scientology and Germany."
    • Also Clinton met Travolta in April, not, as Jayen mentioned, September. Kent:"Travolta attended an April 1997 summit on volunteerism in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in order 'to present educational materials created by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.' The next day, Travolta met President Clinton who told him, 'Your program sounds great.... More than that..., I'd really love to help you with your issue over in Germany with Scientology' (Travolta quoting Clinton in J. Young 1998, 106).Ä Clinton informed Travolta that 'he had a roommate years ago who was a Scientologist and had really liked him, and respected his views on it. He said he felt we were given an unfair hand in [Germany] and that he wanted to fix it' (Ressner 1997).Ä Clinton followed up on this conversation by going 'to the extraordinary length of assigning his national security advisor, Sandy Berger, to be the administration's Scientology point person' (J. Young 1998, 138)." Sanitizer616 (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the revert in the lead. I've added references to the lobbying by lobbyists and celebrities: [48]. As for the Clinton–Travolta meeting, you are quite right. The meeting was in April; September was Travolta's CSCE testimony in Washington, and the meeting with Berger. At any rate though, both meetings were after the 1996 HR report that was critical of Germany, and after the February 1997 asylum decision. Do you feel the meeting between Travolta and Clinton and/or the Clinton quote about his roommate should be mentioned in this article? --JN466 12:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Never mind, I've added it: [49]. --JN466 13:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Monitoring by the German domestic intelligence services

• Do you think the specific title is necessary? Would "Monitoring" be too ambiguous?
• The wording of the first sentence could be improved; "because" is not a great way to start a sentence.
• "Berlin Office for the Protection of the Constitution" this is the first time it's mentioned, yet it's given no context. Also, if an article does exist for it (perhaps as the original German word) then it could be linked. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • [50]. Let's call it "government surveillance", that is in agreement with Deutsche Welle [51], the New York Times [52], BBC [53][54]. The old wording was okay too, used here by Associated Press for example: [55], but now it's shorter. --JN466 21:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The German domestic intelligence services exist at federal ("Bundesamt") and state ("Landesamt") level. The Berlin Office for the Protection of the Constitution is the regional equivalent of the nationwide [Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz|Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution]. We don't have an article on the Berlin Landesamt. I've made it clear in the text that both the Federal Office and some State Offices have monitored Scientology. The distinction is not trivial, because the State Offices are not under the supervision of the Federal Office: they are under the supervision of the state (not the federal) interior ministries. The text really should have made that clear before, so that was a good catch. --JN466 21:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Aborted initiative to ban Scientology

• Do we need "aborted"? The outcome speaks for itself in the text and the reader would lose nothing by having this removed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Deleted. --JN466 07:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• The second image in this section is too large, much of the text could be slimmed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've reduced the size and shortened the caption. (Did you mean the caption text, or the text generally in that section?) --JN466 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    • No the caption text. Better now. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• The dablinks checker indicates two links to disambiguation pages: "Children of God" and "Herald Tribune".
• No errors reported with the external links. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Disambig links fixed. JN466 21:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• No issues with the images in the article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)