Talk:Scientology in Germany

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)

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)

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)