Talk:Scientology in Germany

"Hysteria"

Re the contested sentence "German fears and concerns about new religious movements reached a level resembling hysteria in the mid-nineties, becoming focused mainly on the Church of Scientology." I agonised over this one a long time; if you look through the edit history, I had several times changed to and fro from "reached unprecedented heights" to "reached levels resembling hysteria". There is a remarkably broad spectrum of sources using the term "hysteria" about what happened in the mid- to late 90s in Germany – it includes scholars like Willms ("Zwischen dem Erscheinen der Scientology-Organisation in Deutschland zu Beginn der 1970er Jahre und der Mitte der 1990er Jahre beobachteten Hysterie um diese Erscheinung ...") and Seiwert, Lutheran church spokesmen like Fincke and Nüchtern (cited in Seiwert), as well as German and international mainstream media. I propose we could say "widely described as resembling hysteria", if editors are uncomfortable stating it in the article's editorial voice. --JN466 23:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think our guideline WP:LABEL applies here. We should not apply labels in Wikipedia's voice. The phrase "reached levels resembling hysteria" strikes me as too vague anyway. The phrase "reached unprecedented heights" is dubious as well. See WP:PEACOCK. Also, we should avoid statements in our voice that characterize the German people as a whole. For example "As noted by the religious scholar Hubert Seiwert, Germans came to see ..." would be better phrased "The religious scholar Hubert Seiwert suggests that Germans came to see ..." Most of the article discusses the German government, courts, parliament, etc. That's much more appropriate than talking about "the Germans." Here is one possibility for the initial disputed sentence "Fears and concerns about new religious movements reached a high level in the mid-nineties, becoming focused mainly on the Church of Scientology. Many commentators later used the word 'hysteria' to describe the public reaction [citations]."--agr (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that wording. --JN466 11:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This will not happen. See statement below and reply. Wispanow (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Moderated discussion

I note that a discussion has already started, and I want to thank both Wispanow and JN for their contributions so far. Some general terms to consider:

• I'd like to hold this discussion on this transcluded subpage where it is in public view. I would ask observers to restrain from adding their views directly, as that may distract the process. If someone would like to make a comment, please either get in touch with me, or make the comment on the regular talkpage outside this moderated discussion.
• I will remind both Wispanow and JN to comment directly on the issues, and to read statements carefully before clicking "Save page" in order to reduce the possibility of making personal comments that may hinder the process. Wordings such as "He has edit-warred to add unsourced statements" are not necessary and are unhelpful to the process. I am aware of the past behaviours of both editors, and do not need reminding. From this point all comments should be directed to an impartial investigation of Wispanow's concerns. If either of you notice the other making comments about behaviour rather than content, please do not respond - instead, notify me and I will issue a formal warning, to be followed by sanctions if necessary.
• I will remind you both that I have already issued a warning about inappropriate or disruptive editing of the article. If in doubt, please consult me. And if you notice the other editor making inappropriate or disruptive edits, do not deal with it yourself, but get in touch with me. If I am not available and you consider the matter to be urgent, please get in touch with an uninvolved admin.

If there is any aspect of these terms that you are not clear about or disagree with, please get in touch now. SilkTork *^YES! 11:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to move some or all of the relevant comments that have already been made into this subpage. I would not wish to move onto this page any comments not made by Wispanow and JN, as such comments are not relevant. And I would consider editing out any personal comments while moving. I would then archive the unedited comments on the main talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 11:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Report by Wispanow about the Objectivity of the English Wikipedia regarding Germany especially in Relation to Human Rights and Racist Discrimination

• This report uses a somehow coherent style. Please be so kind not to change anything within this section and any subsections. Please use the section: Requested Changes, Supplements or directly related Comments in case of requested changes, supplements or any probably inappropriate, unbalanced or wrong statement or any directly related reply, comments or questions to this report. Thank you very much. Wispanow (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

INCOMPLETE. Currently i am working on this report, minimum until April. Sorry for delays.

Wispanow (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Partly copied Statement by Wispanow made on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#User:Wispanow. Partly changed. Shorted. Expanded.

Current state

• Some usable preparatory work; incomplete

• Delivered Results:
  • Some Sources from 100% reliable to unreliable valuated and given
  • Some Final Proofs given
  • Call for verifiable sources given at 2010-03-17

Next to deliver

• Definition of Discrimination Expected at: End March.
• Reports about reliability and verifiability of sources. Expected at: March/early April.
• Report about verifiability and racism in the introduction of Scientology in Germany. Expected at: early April.
• Overview of causes for a partly highly biased viewpoint of Scientology in Germany and its editors. Expected at: April.

Preface

Stating reality in an appropriate manner is the main thing ANY encyclopedia and the discussion about it is for.

Leaves to prove what is reality and appropriate.

This is intentionally NOT an Wikipedia article. It intentionally uses sometimes a style which does NOT fulfill Wikipedia guidelines for articles. As ANY information which wants to present details about a specific topic, it limits or even excludes details of other, related topics and therefore violates neutrality. Sometimes specific viewpoints are presented, which are seen in comparison or as an addition to other, already presented or known viewpoints. Although this specific viewpoints highly violate neutrality if seen alone, in addition to other viewpoints it overall "increases" or "improves" neutrality. This is No explanation of the universe, this galaxy or even this tiny little planet called earth.[1]

Additionally this text uses sometimes a wording not being seen as appropriate for nearly all Wikipedia articles. In some Wikipedia articles like Racism, Discrimination or Seven dirty words a wording is seen as appropriate and necessary, which differs from most other Wikipedia articles. Imho this is true for this topic and viewpoint and i will prove it. In the meantime i am sorry for any use of upsetting but appropriate words.

Basics

Reality, Objectivity, Neutrality and Valuations relating to Wikipedia

All humans live in the minimum 4-dimensional universe with minimum 4-dimensional relations as perceived by Einstein (and his wife?).

This is fundamental for any knowledge or neutral point of view today and needed for knowing the position as well as direction of anything related to humans.

What does this mean?

"Sparks" of Reality

To see reality means to have an absolutely secure position. Having NOT an exact position means if someone runs in a direction (for example gain more money) he probably achieves this, but may be surprised if the reached position is not the wanted. Discovered "Sparks of Reality" can be used as an anchor for finding evidence and for a proof.

Objectivity

This is the correct application (by for example scientific method) of current knowledge. Truth, science, knowledge relates here. By far the easiest to prove.

Equaling the Balance, Unique Neutral point of view

Very difficult to achieve, and impossible to prove in reality because relations are everywhere. Law and judiciary are often examples of getting an appropriate judgment by "proofs" which are relative and do not fulfill a absolute objectivity. The time clearly is relevant (many "history" pages in Wikipedia), needs balance and often makes me lamenting ;-).

Yours, mine, any personal viewpoint

May be any of the above, but is by far mostly (we do not have the time to make an investigation about every statement we have to give) biased. For example even the most serious, earnest scientist prefers some kind of food (without proof, probably biased ;-) ).

Fictitious Example of Viewpoints about 1+1=?

Number of humans stating viewpoints	"Biased" viewpoints	Neutral viewpoint	Objective journalism	Objective viewpoints	Reality
10 humans state 1+1=3	Any, but faction "3" is dominating	1+1=3	1+1=3	1+1=3	1+1=2
10 humans state 1+1=3 10 humans state 1+1=4	Any, but often faction "3" is fighting with "4"	"3", "4" presented	A) "3", "4" presented B) 1+1=3.5	A) "3", "4" presented B) 1+1=3.5 C) Result unknown	1+1=2
10 humans state 1+1=3 10 humans state 1+1=4 1 human claims to know 1+1=2	Any, but often faction "3" is fighting with "4", and/or both together against "anti-democratic", "know-all" "2"	"2", "3", "4" presented	A) "2", "3", "4" presented B) "2" is outlier: 1+1=3.5 C) Average: 1+1=3.4 D) "2" is true: 1+1=2	A) "2", "3", "4" presented B) "2" is unproven: 1+1=3.5 C) Average: 1+1=3.4 D) "2" recognized: 1+1=2 E) Result unknown	1+1=2
10 humans state 1+1=3 10 humans state 1+1=4 100 humans claim to know 1+1=2	Any, but mostly faction "2" is suppressing "3" and "4" as inappropriate, and "3" and "4" feeling suppressed, claiming minority rights, are not able to join	"2", "3", "4" presented	1+1=2	A) "2", "3", "4" presented B) 1+1=2 C) "2" is disproven: 1+1=3.5 D) Average: 1+1=2.3 E) Result unknown	1+1=2
10 humans state 1+1=3 (Two humans are unknown, five are female (one of them aged over 65, 3 below 18), one is a mayor of a small town and has previously often stated that 1+1=6, but after being accused of receiving money from "Company 6" he quickly changed to 1+1=1, was quickly accused that his wife has shares from "The one and only" company, and finally changed to 1+1=3, the two others are his wife and his assistant) 10 humans state 1+1=4 (Eight humans are presented in a poll published in an article of "Publisher of the final Truth", which claims to have many scientists and experts, one has several academic degrees and published many books, some of them at "Publisher of the final Truth", and one is a known homosexual) 100 humans claim to know 1+1=2 (42 are unknown, one has a Ph-D degree, two are known believers of the "2 by 2" church (previously they believed 1+1=1[2][3], and are continuing support for this belief), three are...., one is...., others are.....)	Any, but mostly faction "2" is suppressing "3" and "4" as inappropriate, and "3" and "4" feeling suppressed, claiming minority rights, are not able to join	"2", "3", "4" presented in the UNIQUE neutral viewpoint	Difficult, but mostly 1+1=2 is seen as appropriate	A) "2", "3", "4" presented B) 1+1=2 C) "2" is disproven: 1+1=3.5 D) Average: 1+1=2.3 E) Result unknown	1+1=2

Journalism can have any of these viewpoints, and has mostly mixed viewpoints. Good, serious journalism (which includes somehow Wikipedia) is often seen as a mixture of objectivity and neutrality:

1. Viewpoints which are seen as "wrong" by most "reliable sources", are excluded; violating neutrality.
2. "Unknown" is nearly ever no new and even if, no interesting message; although some journalists will have this viewpoint, they do not publish, and others will post different viewpoints which violate neutrality.

Note that "violating neutrality" is valuated neutral: neither "positive" nor "negative". Reason is that it may present an unreal viewpoint, to give 1+1=3 and 1+1=4 similar room than 1+1=2, even if in the second last example the room is weighted per human percentage. The "right" result: 1+1=2 may be questioned "inappropriately" in the view of the reader by "wrong" results. So that depends on:

a) who are the readers,

b) in which manner will they read the text and

c) which result represents reality.

Germany has a different, "non-racist" state structure: a summary

That does not mean, that other states are racist, but motivated by history and after several trials the founders of Germany has found a brilliant way to implement a world-leading level of protection of human rights while leaving a very high level of freedom. It is based on the Rechtsstaat (State of Laws), which limits power of politicians especially in everything related to human rights by increasing the power of the courts together with a high level of separation of powers.

At a first look the German constitution does not offer very uncommon things while stating the "basics" of the basic law in the first 12 articles. The articles are mainly ordered by importance; Religious freedom is article 3 and 4 after human dignity, freedom and general human rights. Regarding to freedom of religion:

• Any needed registration would violate the freedom of religion, stated in Artikel 4. A needed registration will limit the freedom.
• The same with recognition.
• Any believer, its religious community and the economically organization is protected.

In fact, there is no recognition or registration possible. Otherwise give a prove.

The world-wide unique thing in its combination of features is the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany), which guarantees and protects human rights for everybody who thinks his rights were violated related to Germany or Germans. It can partly be seen as a "Super" Supreme Court:

1. Accessible as an inviolable right by everybody worldwide, independent of religion, decent, nationality or race. Other states limit access to protection of human rights dependent of religion, decent, nationality or race (short "race" as defined by United Nations), making them violable for most humans of the world, or "racist".

2. Can be called directly, without need for calling lower courts first, but can be (and is mostly) used as the highest appeal in Germany, even higher than the Federal courts.

3. Easiest accessible: No money needed for everybody, no lawyer or special lawyer needed: A formless, hand-written paper in any language of the world is sufficient.

4. Highly independent: For example it often changes, blocks or even fully deletes laws of the German government several times a year due to violation of the constitution. That does not make German politicians look good. German politicians are often, and especially in areas related to the protection of basic human rights, extremely limited by the courts, making them nearly powerless. In opposite, the Bundesverfassungsgericht seems currently change even European law (although it is not directly entitled to) in case of privacy protection.

5. Its power is tremendous although it has never been tested because never ignored. In comparison the US Supreme Court has a lot less power: Although the Supreme Court judged in 2004 that Guantanamo prisoners should have full access to the courts (not as a inviolable right for everyone, but gracefully granted to a few guys), its judgment, even with a follow-up in 2008, is minimum partly ignored.

6. It MUST be called to get active.

7. Germany has ratified the European Convention on Human Rights with the European Court of Human Rights and other international declarations of human rights including their courts.

Germany protects the free speech even of politicians: Aren't others?

But Germans take not as much care in political correctness, as especially USA. This relates to talking, in actions it seems imho contrary. Discussing in Germany is often a lot more frankly, strenuous and offensive, and i seem not to do better. The highly active german courts do a comparison of the right of free speech and the right of protection of individuals or groups. Imho German courts reached a top-level of protection in any written text, except news: for example Germany is one of the very few states worldwide in which every public internet-forum needs a supervisor because the forum owner can be punished for every entry which is possibly insulting, disgracing, discrediting or otherwise violate rights: but therefore limiting the freedom of speech especially in published texts except newspapers.

The spoken word is judged less offensive because it is transient; free speech is less limited. Politicians do have no special rights or limits.

Everything together in case of politicians may give a:

• High level of free speech in spoken words
• with less need for political correctness
• the extreme limits in power especially in case of basic human rights seems in some areas allows politicians to speak very frankly about their preferences and wishes, as their talk is nearly fully unimportant. Some of them do so about Scientology.
• Freedom of newspapers is highly protected in Germany, so sometimes quite aggressive, disgracing and even discriminating statements are published. Due to the nearly complete lack of power of any politician in case of basic human rights this may look important in foreign countries, but isn't.

Thats why i often call German politicians screaming little monkeys, trying anything to get attention and look important, while they are dancing to the music of the courts (in human rights, but many areas are related to this).

But that's mainly because of my high expectations. Politicians in other countries use their right of free speech, too.

It is unbalanced, only to publish any proposed actions of politicians relating to Scientology in Germany, but not to do so with other countries.

Germany is a strictly parliamentary democracy

Though nearly everything has to pass both chambers of the parliament (Politics of Germany) means, every use of the term German government includes the federal chancellor, all federal ministers and both chambers of the parliament; calling parts of that German government is a misuse.

Even every mission of the German army, the Bundeswehr has to be allowed by the parliament. The army is not allowed to use any weapons within German borders; even helping missions are difficult.

There is no federal police. There is no police leader in the German government.

The Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution) monitors anti-constitutional activities in Germany.

Judiciary of Germany

• Nearly any correction of a judgment is done by appeals, not by revision or super-revision.
• The courts have much more power than for example in USA: they can call for more sources, researches or new investigations.
• "Anything which/who can contribute to find the truth, is allowed." Thats the main thing, any evidence must be regarded, even it was first not shown probably for tactical reasons, or if it even was acquired by an criminal act.

Summary

1. A balanced view of statements of German politicians NEEDS a view on the power of the politician, which is nearly not there in case of human rights, including freedom of religion. If there is nearly no power, its something like a private speech of a politician, and highly questioning relevancy.

2. A balanced view of statements of German politicians NEEDS international balance: it will give a distorted, wrong view of Germany, if statements of politicians given in talk-shows, newspaper interview of short reply of a quick question, or during a parliament debate are listed as relevant, important positions. Unbalanced and irrelevant.

Incomplete.

Facts

Scientology Believers, Members, Customers and Employees, the Community, the Church, the Economical Organization and Companies

Thats some of the characteristics, but in the German law it can be reduced to three, the:

• Individual, which can be believer, member, customer employee or whatever: he is directly mentioned and enjoys religious freedom protected by the constitution without any registration, special recognition or whatever needed, possible or allowed.
• Community, society, "church" without its economical aspects, just the group of people with its non-economical activities: is seen as directly mentioned and enjoys religious freedom protected by the constitution without any registration, special recognition or whatever needed, possible or allowed.
• Economical Organization and companies and the economical part of the church: acting as contractor/subcontractor, employer and owner: is not clearly directly mentioned, but the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany has ruled that this is absolutely necessary, has full religious freedom and is fully directly protected by the constitution without any RELIGIOUS registration, special recognition or whatever needed, possible or allowed. Due to the economical characteristic and legal statutes, see: Status_of_religious_freedom_in_Germany#Legal_statutes_for_religious_groups.

Result is: Just stating "Scientology" is MINIMUM misunderstandable, often clearly wrong and probably racist.

Sources with unbalanced, biased or wrong statements or viewpoints or wrongly cited

1. Consider that sources may not reflect reality. Germany under Attack from Scientology which enjoys Freedom of Religion and Protection of Human Rights
2. Consider that anything i remember in this article about the recognition of Scientology and nearly anything about the violation of human rights in Germany is wrong. Scientology Gerichtsurteile Translation: Scientology Judgments: Recognition of 30 years Basic Law Article 4 Religious Freedom Church of Scientology in Germany 1978 to 2008 Scientology statements

I accuse mainly time.com and partly bbc.co.uk (and others) for stating an unbalanced, wrong and/or even racist viewpoint of Germany and german people. Therefore it will not help adding additional sources just mentioning the same viewpoint, but

check if its real or wrong or racist.

In case of human rights, this means mainly court judgments or VERY difficult to achieve balanced view of actions happened.

Listed sources are insufficient; search for more.

My definition of racism against Germany and German people is based on the United Nations

The UN does not define "racism", however it does define "racial discrimination": according to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

This definition does not make any difference between prosecutions based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the two remains debatable among anthropologists.

According to British law, racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin".

Leaves to define discrimination:

The United Nations uses the definition of racial discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted in 1966:

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.(Part 1 of Article 1 of the U.N. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination)

I prefer to add two more points:

1. Because we are not perfect and it may offend somebody, use of the term "racism" needs a considerably amount of discrimination
2. Statements have to differ from reality or include meanings that differ from reality.

Clear definition. Can be final. Wispanow (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Other Definitions of Racism and Racist

Wiktionary: Racism

1. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
2. The belief that one race is superior to all others.
3. Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.

Wiktionary: Racist: "An advocate of racism."

Macmillan Dictionary: Racist

"someone who does not like or respect people who belong to races that are different from their own and who believes their race is better than others."

Categories of Discrimination

Racism and Discrimination are stating ways to do racism. Although this are good pages with many articles, listing a lot of details, i prefer categorization in a partly different manner and needed a summary. The definition of racism given before is the base. If you need sources, look especially in Discrimination and linked pages.

This section is needed for later proofs. Please feel not offended as i use some filthy examples to explain discrimination and racism. Otherwise skip reading this paragraph. It is absolutely NOT my intention to offend anybody. I am sure i am biased as all humans are, but trying my best.

Highly incomplete

Basics of Discrimination

In order to get it done and for ease of use i written this reduced, simplified summary which works quite well in this case.

Discrimination by changing the Quantity

• Increasing quantity:
  • A Pole stole my car. (Thats true, it was my beloved Audi Quattro): No racism because its true; although it may be impolite and inappropriate.
  • Many/All Poles steel cars. Clearly strong discrimination and racism. (I will not support that)

• Lowering quantity:

• Increasing a part:

Discrimination by changing Equality

This is by far the most powerful because extremely difficult to counter.

Types of Racism

"Hidden" Racism

Common,

Questions

National Hysteria: Sure you can prove Scientology murdered millions of Germans?

Probably its a lack of definition: Nation is easy in case of Germany: i will accept even everybody inside the borders, every Germany citizen or people of CLOSE Germany decent. Definition:

Hysteria, in its colloquial use, describes a state of mind, one of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses. The fear is often caused by multiple events in one's past that involved some sort of severe conflict; the fear can be centered on a body part or most commonly on an imagined problem with that body part (disease is a common complaint). See also Body dysmorphic disorder and Hypochondriasis. People who are "hysterical" often lose self-control due to the overwhelming fear.

Mass hysteria — other names include collective hysteria, Mass Psychogenic Illness, or collective obsessional behavior — is the sociopsychological phenomenon of the manifestation of the same or similar hysterical symptoms by more than one person.[1][2] A common manifestation of mass hysteria occurs when a group of people believe they are suffering from a similar disease or ailment.

Specific examples: In 2009 in Fort Worth, Texas, 34 people were sent to the hospital after they complained about having symptoms when they mistakenly thought they had been exposed to carbon monoxide.

Though i found a mass-hysteria, but no national one. And i can see a clear association, that it MUST be a NATIONAL hysteria, in order to fullfill the sources.

I request examples of best USA and UK of NATIONAL hysteria, if you want, make a list. Please state how many people died or a source. And i absolutely see that a national hysteria should be mentioned on the page of that country. Please no additional german hysteria. If you want to prove that only Germany can have a national hysteria, be warned. I do not accept not proving a source in detail, like "If it was no hysteria, than some fears".

I request primary sources or other sources proving how this hysterias established in Germany. Please state the number of people died, and a lot of additional, independent sources. Should be easy.

The second way, if you have problems proving the first one, is to prove that Scientology caused an event that shocked Germany. Due to no hysteria is known after World War 2, even with many millions of Germans died and main parts of the country destroyed, others lost forever, Scientology should probably murdered millions of Germans to cause a hysteria. Sure?

I can see none of that: There are Nearly no sources for any of the National or Mass-hysteria others that the few ones i am highly questioning. No prove: DELETE!

Scientology monitored

Scientology Organizations were monitored for many years mainly by the Bundesverfassungsschutz, but also by several Constitution Protection agencies of the Federal districts of Germany. It was currently judged, that this is minimum partly inappropriate. But several:

Open Questions

1. How is MONITORING of religious or other organizations seen in other countries, mainly USA and UK? Is it:

• Legal?
• Being made?
• Even by religious organizations?
• Do they provide information about that?
• What agency would perform this in USA and UK?

Sources

Incomplete, but usable.

100% Reliable, Verifiable Sources

This sources are 100% reliable and verifiable, outperforming ALL others with contrary and/or differing statements, making them usable to prove objectivity, neutrality and representation of reality.

1. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany Original text: HTML, PDF,non-official table of contents (status: August 2006) (in German). Official Translation: PDF (in English)

2. European Convention on Human Rights: Full text of the European Convention on Human Rights

3. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (and in PDF format). Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as adapted at Lisbon. European Parliament’s explanation of the Charter. Detailed Guide to the EU Charter

4. Chapter : Religion and Religious Communities The Reich Constitution of August 11th 1919 (Weimar Constitution) with Modifications Articles 136-139+141 are part of the German constitution

5. This: Scientology Gerichtsurteile Translation: Scientology Judgments: Recognition of 30 years Basic Law Article 4 Religious Freedom Church of Scientology in Germany 1978 to 2008 [4] is mainly a list of court judgments which are available in detail in the internet via the Aktenzeichen AZ. It further can be seen as a HIGHLY reliable source providing statements of Scientology in Germany about their view of Religious Freedom in Germany related to Scientology.

Reliable, Verifiable Sources

1. Germany under Attack from Scientology which enjoys Freedom of Religion and Protection of Human Rights

2. Scientology statements

3. [5] Reliable because primary sources given; must be checked; Scientology presentation

Somehow reliable Sources, MUST be checked

1. [6]: Listing court judgments; Scientology presentation

Highly unreliable, incorrect sources

1. [7]: Wrong and highly biased viewpoint of Scientology. Provided by Jayen466 as a "disprove the notion that Scientologists are happy with the protection of their human rights in Germany". Prove the source.

Final Proofs

Sources not listed.

In case of doubt, try to prove the contrary or the position you prefer. If you fail and even doubt, contact me, best with all related info you have.

1. The German constitution lists the full protection of freedom of religion in Artikel 3+4, with no registration or special recognition needed, possible or allowed. It is valid and in power.

2. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany is easiest directly accessible as an inviolable right by everybody worldwide, independent and powerful.

3. European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights (which are valid, accessible and in power) ratified, easily accessible, independent and powerful. Even other international declarations of human right and its courts ratified; in contrary to for example the USA.

4. "Scientology" has proven to many times be able and that they do not hesitate to call the courts, even international.

5. It claims itself that its freedom of religion is protected. Listing additional primary sources as a proof.

• Currently challenged by Jayen466: I asked for additional proof.

6. The freedom of religion is independent from the tax-exempt status. And a tax-exempt status is no recognition of any religion.

7. The German government does not and is not allowed to registrate or recognize any religion, but has to respect the freedom of religion.

8. Private opinions of some politicians does a) not reflect the opinion of the German government and b) is their right of free speech and c) is irrelevant.

9. Many Wikipedia editors (Imho the majority, without any proof, but why i am accused Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#User:Wispanow here?) are recognizing that some or main parts of the introduction of Scientology in Germany are stating that the Freedom of Religion or other Human Rights are NOT guaranteed and/or granted in a considerable part. Sources see Scientology in Germany history and comments also on the talk page and relating articles links like Scientology_controversies#Treatment_of_Scientologists_in_Germany, Scientology status by country and their talk pages. I can remember my article edits being reverted with reasons like: "Does not seem to be valid".

10. This source provides statements which are partly CLEARLY contrary to the statements in Scientology in Germany, in other parts they are contrary as a conclusion. Statements that believe regarding Scientology in Germany may be biased, are delivered.

11. If different employees or members with different claims and different employment contracts relating to probably different Scientology Organizations or companies get different labour court judgments even with different valuations of the behavior or the religious activity of the respective Scientology Organization or company as an employer regarding to this different employee or member, this is no violation of any human right or freedom of religion at all and imho absolutely irrelevant for Wikipedia.

12. No one is perfect; even i am not ;-). The longer a text or even a book, the more errors are (statistically) included. This relates to ALL sources.

13. That someone received an academic degree, worked in a leading position and wrote some books, is NO proof that every statement or even the major viewpoint is correct, neutral or verifiable.

14. German judges judge about UNIQUE, nearly always past, submitted states or characteristics, are NOT allowed to judge about a religion and/or believe and are no soothsayers or speculators: If an economical organization of a religious group which sells books, courses and trainings and collects membership fees and gifts while employing employees and giving provision and sales percentage to members, employees and subcontractors while paying royalty fees, advertisement and service contracts and other commercial companies and everything regarding to rooms and buildings, receives a judgment that clearly non-religous activity is surely predominating (religious freedom is one of the highest values in Germany) regarding ALL its past activities and seldom appropriate sure future activities, its no violation of religious freedom because its currently surely mainly no religious organization. This is no foretell, is NO valuation of the religion and/or believe and is NOT comparable to a different economical organization in a different country with different financing and with different commercial, financial and religious activities of a different quantity and different quantitative proportion, even if it is the same believe.

Any direct or indirect comparison of any valuation and/or judgment of any economical related part of any Scientology Church (including the economical part), Organization or Company in Germany with that of other states which is not minimum mentioning that it is a different organization with different activities and/or financing is wrong and biased. Of course a comparison about individuals and/or community or church without any economical relation is possible and can be relevant.

15. Just stating "Scientology" without stating if it is an individual, the community (or parts of it) and/or any economical organization of Scientology or in major ownership of Scientology is MINIMUM misunderstandable, often clearly wrong and probably racist.

16. The German government consists of the parliament with both chambers, federal ministers, chancellor and president. Stating "German government" but meaning less than the majority of it (we are a parliamentary democracy), is MINIMUM misunderstandable, often clearly wrong and probably racist.

Probably incomplete

Effects, Results and Conclusion

To be completed.

Call for verifiable Sources until 2010-03-21

• Although my Statements by Wispanow is mostly incomplete and is
• lacking many details, reasons, proofs and sources which will delivered mostly until March 20, but
• in respect to other editors, especially User:Jayen466, and in intention to give them as much time as possible until March 21, which i think is appropriate due to the severity of my claims that the article Scientology in Germany delivers in main parts a highly biased and highly inappropriate viewpoint violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which i will prove for most parts of the introduction, effecting main parts of the article, until 2010-03-20,
• although it is mostly not needed due to Wikipedia:Verifiability:

This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to information about living persons: unsourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately.,

• i have until now delivered enough evidence in my Final Proofs (read it?) together with 100% Reliable Verifiable Sources and Reliable, Verifiable Sources to challenge

• all sources that claims that human rights, especially freedom of religion, is violated considerably. I call for the primary sources or sources giving otherwise a proof. Sources, even many of them, just mentioning a violation of human rights, are NOT accepted.
• especially the introduction of Scientology in Germany except the first two sentences. Please provide additional sources for all statements. Sources, even many of them, just mentioning a statement, are NOT accepted.
• all sources that are not available; mostly Scholarly sources. Especially i request as much text as possible from
  • all books from Besier, Gerhard, though he lost his job minimum partly as being accused to be biased and inappropriate engaged related to Scientology.
  • Browne, Michael
  • Davis, Derek H
  • Seiwert, Hubert
  • Palmer, Susan J.
  • Weber, Hermann
  • Hendon, David W.
  • Fox, Jonathan

though i have to check if their books are reliable sources. Google online books links will be excellent.

Please use Talk:Scientology in Germany/sources to add the sources. Enough space to state them. Please not only the inline citation: minimum several sentences before and after that.

If in a special case a longer time is needed to provide the sources, please state which source and when it can be presented. Please be aware that in the meantime the statements related to it may be made invisible.

Wispanow (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested Changes, Supplements or directly related Comments to the Report by Wispanow above

• The report above uses a somehow coherent style. Please be so kind not to change anything in the report above and its subsections. Please use this section in case of requested changes, supplements or any probably inappropriate, unbalanced or wrong statement or any directly related reply, comments or questions to this report. Thank you very much. Wispanow (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wispanow (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Replies, Facts, Reasons, Comments and Questions by ANYONE directly and closely related to this essay

(Comment from Jayen466 moved from the report above. About [8]. Wispanow (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

• This source is not used in the article. It has never been used and I have expressly said that I am against using it at any point in the future. I posted it to rebut Wispanow's statement that Scientology is in fact happy with the situation in Germany, and said at the time that was the only reason I posted it. --JN466 12:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Protection under Article 4 of the German Constitution

Following on from the discussions at WP:AE, Wispanow (talk · contribs) has several times in the past argued that Scientology enjoys the full protection of Article 4 (Freedom of Religion) of the Basic Law in Germany.

The following is from a German Parliament debate:

Antwort des Staatssekretärs Dr. Willi Hausmann vom 12. Dezember 1995

Bundesministerin Claudia Nolte vertritt wie die Bundesregierung seit langem die Auffassung, daß die Scientology-Organisation weder eine Religionsgemeinschaft noch eine Weltanschauungsgemeinschaft ist. Ihre Ziele sind eindeutig auf wirtschaftliche Aktivitäten ausgerichtet, und ihre Behauptung, eine Religions- oder Weltanschauungsgemeinschaft zu sein, stellt nur einen Vorwand dar. Deshalb kann sich die Scientology-Organisation nach Auffassung der Bundesregierung auch nicht auf die durch Artikel 4 des Grundgesetzes geschützte Religionsfreiheit berufen. Die Bundesregierung sieht sich in dieser Auffassung durch die Entscheidung des Bundesarbeitsgerichts vom 22. März 1995 bestätigt. Auf die Bedeutung des Urteils hat Bundesministerin Claudia Nolte in dem Gespräch in der Zeitung "Die Welt" ausdrücklich hingewiesen. Sie hat außerdem ihre Sorge darüber geäußert, wie die Scientology-Organisation "unter dem Deckmantel der Religion" agiert.

For those editors who don't speak German, here is a rough google translation: [9] A more legible translation would be this:

Response by the State Secretary, Dr. Willi Hausmann, 12 December 1995

Like the Federal Government, Federal Minister Claudia Nolte has long taken the view that the Scientology organization is neither a religious community nor a worldview community. Its objectives are clearly focused on economic activities, and its claim to be a religious or worldview community is only a pretext. Therefore, in the opinion of the Federal Government, the Scientology organization cannot call upon protection under the religious freedom clause in Article 4 of the Basic Law. The Federal Government has seen its opinion confirmed by the decision of the Federal Labor Court of 22 March 1995. Federal Minister Claudia Nolte clearly referred to the importance of this decision in her interview in the newspaper Die Welt. She has also expressed her concern about how the Scientology organization operates "under the guise of a religion".

If you require clarification of any part of this, please let me know, and we can get an outside German-speaking editor in, who can confirm the meaning of what is being said.

While this reply is 15 years old, the German government's position has remained unchanged, as described in this background paper from the German Parliament website: [10]: "Die Bundesregierung hat jüngst bekräftigt, dass sie Scientology nicht als Religions- bzw. Weltanschauungsgemeinschaft ansehe." ("The German government has recently affirmed that it does not consider Scientology a religious or ideological community.") The paper, a brief for German Members of Parliament, explains that the legal situation is unresolved, and that there have been judgments going either way, affirming or denying entitlement to protection under Article 4.

I am not aware of any German or foreign reliable sources that state anything else about the German government's position. For example, the BBC states, Scientology is not recognised as a religion by the German government. It is considered a commercial enterprise, despite repeated protests by Scientologists. More BBC hits: [11] Similarly, Time Magazine states, The German government also guarantees freedom of religion but refuses to register Scientology as a religion, considering it a profit-making enterprise that that is bilking its members of their savings. Wispanow has stated at WP:AE, "I accuse mainly time.com and partly bbc.co.uk (and others) for stating an unbalanced, wrong and/or even racist viewpoint of Germany and german people. Therefore it will not help adding additional sources just mentioning the same viewpoint, but check if its real or wrong or racist."

I believe the German parliament sources linked to above demonstrate that Time magazine and the BBC do not misrepresent the German government's position. Can we agree that we can put this particular issue to bed then, or do editors see a need for further discussion? --JN466 10:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wispanow refers above to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG), which really is the final arbiter at the national level. The BVerfG has so far not made a ruling on Scientology's status. Neither side seems to have been prepared to force the issue by asking for such a ruling (most likely because they each had too much to lose in case the decision were to go against them). Scientology did however win an important case against Russia in 2007 at the European Court of Human Rights, which censured Russia for failing to register Scientology as a religion. According to James T. Richardson, this decision may prove influential in other European countries. The way I read Richardson, Scientology can now be fairly confident that the BVerfG would be overruled by the ECHR if they were to pronounce against Scientology's entitlement to religious status. But I am not aware of anything happening on that front, and even if there were, the BVerfG has been known to take up to 10 years to come to a decision. --JN466 01:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wispanow's comment on politicians' right to free speech

On the one hand, Wispanow has a point. Schön for example points out (pp. 12–13) that German politicians do sometimes engage in rhetoric for mere media effect. However, that was the point of the sourced paragraph that Wispanow deleted. Let's look at reinstating that paragraph. We can look at the wording.

On the other hand, where an official gives the official position of the German government, as in the example in the preceding section, this is not just an exercise of free speech. If the German government does not recognise Scientology as a religion, this has very real consequences -- it has affected taxation, government surveillance, association law, employment issues, even banking. --JN466 23:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Re section "Sources with unbalanced, biased or wrong statements or viewpoints or wrongly cited"

I don't understand the point of this section. What part of the article, specifically, does it relate to? The Scientology blog and Scientology press release that Wispanow links to are not reliable sources, for reasons explained earlier at WP:AE. I believe the points cited in the background paper are broadly represented in the article. If you feel something essential is missing, please advise. --JN466 23:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The section "Germany has a different, "non-racist" state structure: a summary" I don't understand at all. The article does not claim anywhere that Germans are racist. --JN466 23:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The section "My definition of racism against Germany and German people is based on United Nations" has me equally baffled. --JN466 23:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Communication

Thank you very much for you all for your comments. And i mean it. I am currently exploring, why my attempt to change the main viewpoint of the article, were rejected mainly. The first reason is that i can clearly see that few of my former comments and discussion contributions were written in a highly aggressive style. I am working on it. Although i am reading your contributions and trying to understand, i think therefore it will be wise not to give you a quick reply.

The second reason is that i delivered not enough reasons. This is my current task, writing a summary of arguments, somehow in an essay-style. Currently this is highly incomplete and lacking sources. Imho it needs minimum a week to give a comprehensive picture. Please be patient with me, i am trying my best. Wispanow (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate what you said here. --JN466 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientology's own statements on the human rights situation in Germany

Wispanow asserts above that Scientology "claims itself that its freedom of religion is protected". Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is a Scientology primary source on the topic: http://www.humanrights-germany.org/about/shocking.htm Here is another: http://www.menschenrechtsbuero.de/ I am not proposing to use these primary sources as sources for article content, but it is necessary to enter them into the discussion here to disprove the notion that Scientologists are happy with the protection of their human rights in Germany. --JN466 12:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, http://www.menschenrechtsbuero.de/ should be added as an external link in the article, in addition to scientology.de. JN466 12:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Documented violations of Scientologists' rights by government agencies

A number of German courts have found that German government agencies had infringed Scientologists' constitutional religious rights. One example is documented here on a Scientology website. A mainstream press account of the case is here. The court's decision is here. Here (an English source) is another such example, declaring the City of Hamburg's practice of providing businesses with protective declarations designed to screen out Scientologist business partners unlawful and a violation of Scientologists' basic rights. In this case a government agency withdrew association status from a Scientology organisation, arguing that it was a business, rather than a religious or ideological organisation. The court reversed the decision, ruling that Scientology was not a commercial organisation. There are more such cases where government agencies were found by German courts to have infringed Scientologists' rights. Cf. also this summary in a Cambridge University Press book. --JN466 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Jayen466

1. The government agencies case clearly shows that the protection of human rights works wonderful and HIGHLY independent. Important requests to give a balanced viewpoint:

• How and by which agency is "Scientology" monitored in other countries, especially in USA and UK?
• If you find fewer sources, is there a reason?

2. You seem to love aggressive sources, highly attacking and accusing and even giving biased view of Germany and Germans. Prove the sources you given:

• This sentence in this summary
• I claim this article gives clearly wrong, highly probable mendacious statements delivering a biased viewpoint. You like it? Prove it.

Wispanow (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I am not aware that Scientology is monitored by domestic intelligence services in either the UK (by MI5) or the US (by the FBI). I've just googled for Scientology + monitored [12] and most everything that comes up is about Germany.

2a. The sentence in question is not used to source anything in this article. (The reason it is in yellow is simply because it is the beginning of the relevant paragraph, and I had to use it as a search term in google books to obtain a link that would take editors to the beginning of the relevant paragraph.) Let's just stick to this article. Beyond that, however, it is clearly a reliable source. Cambridge University Press is one of the most reputable academic publisher worldwide, and the author is a professor of government and politics. Wikipedia policies and guidelines direct us to reflect such sources. If you wish to assert that a Cambridge University Press book by a professor is not a reliable source, we can take the matter to the reliable sources noticeboard.

2b. This primary source is not used to source anything in this article, and I would be against using it. I don't want to enter into any discussions about it. As I said above, I only introduced it because Wispanow alleged that Scientology say they are satisfied with the situation in Germany. This primary source clearly shows that they are not, but are in fact making rather a lot of noise about how unsatisfied they are. --JN466 11:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've checked up on the Scientology site's claim that the Human Rights Centre of Essex University condemned Germany's treatment of Scientologists. The claim is correct. The statement was made in the 1997 publication "Freedom of Religion and Belief: A World Report". The precise quote is as follows: "However, the continuing role of the state in religious intolerance in some countries should not be ignored. China, Viet Nam, Sudan are examples. In Germany, democracy is used as an ideology to impose conformity. It has been dismaying to discover that the state, and some of its politicians and people, are using what are known from the past to be well-worn paths of discrimination and intolerance and of inciting intolerance towards a new religious minority, the Scientologists. Perhaps the fear of a renascent millenarianism, a feature of Nazi Aryan ideology underlies this response, however inappropriate it may be to some new religions." Book Title: Freedom of Religion and Belief: A World Report. Contributors: Kevin Boyle - editor, Juliet Sheen - editor. Publisher: Routledge. Place of Publication: London. Publication Year: 1997. Page Number: 13.
• Kevin Boyle is a Professor of Law and the Director of the Human Rights Centre, University of Essex. He is a Barrister at Law in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and England with considerable experience of international human rights litigation under the European Convention of Human Rights. Juliet Sheen is a Fellow of the Human Rights Centre, University of Essex. In 1994 she established an independent consultancy in human rights, specialising in the area of freedom of religion and belief.
• While I wouldn't cite the Scientology site, this is a reliable source, from a reputable author and a reputable publisher. --JN466 13:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientology monitored

Scientology Organizations were monitored for many years mainly by the Bundesverfassungsschutz, but also by several Constitution Protection agencies of the Federal districts of Germany. It was currently judged, that this is minimum partly inappropriate. But several:

Open Questions

1. How is MONITORING of religious or other organizations seen in other countries, mainly USA and UK? Is it:

• Legal?
• Being made?
• Even by religious organizations?
• Do they provide information about that?
• What agency would perform this in USA and UK?

Wispanow (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

National Hysteria: Sure you can prove Scientology murdered millions of Germans?

Probably its a lack of definition: Nation is easy in case of Germany: i will accept even everybody inside the borders, every Germany citizen or people of CLOSE Germany decent. Definition:

Hysteria, in its colloquial use, describes a state of mind, one of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses. The fear is often caused by multiple events in one's past that involved some sort of severe conflict; the fear can be centered on a body part or most commonly on an imagined problem with that body part (disease is a common complaint). See also Body dysmorphic disorder and Hypochondriasis. People who are "hysterical" often lose self-control due to the overwhelming fear.

Mass hysteria — other names include collective hysteria, Mass Psychogenic Illness, or collective obsessional behavior — is the sociopsychological phenomenon of the manifestation of the same or similar hysterical symptoms by more than one person.[1][2] A common manifestation of mass hysteria occurs when a group of people believe they are suffering from a similar disease or ailment.

Specific examples: In 2009 in Fort Worth, Texas, 34 people were sent to the hospital after they complained about having symptoms when they mistakenly thought they had been exposed to carbon monoxide.

Though i found a mass-hysteria, but no national one. And i can see a clear association, that it MUST be a NATIONAL hysteria, in order to fullfill the sources.

I request examples of best USA and UK of NATIONAL hysteria, if you want, make a list. Please state how many people died or a source. And i absolutely see that a national hysteria should be mentioned on the page of that country. Please no additional german hysteria. If you want to prove that only Germany can have a national hysteria, be warned. I do not accept not proving a source in detail, like "If it was no hysteria, than some fears".

I request primary sources or other sources proving how this hysterias established in Germany. Please state the number of people died, and a lot of additional, independent sources. Should be easy.

The second way, if you have problems proving the first one, is to prove that Scientology caused an event that shocked Germany. Due to no hysteria is known after World War 2, even with many millions of Germans died and main parts of the country destroyed, others lost forever, Scientology should probably murdered millions of Germans to cause a hysteria. Sure?

I can see none of that: There are Nearly no sources for any of the National or Mass-hysteria others that the few ones i am highly questioning. No prove: DELETE!

Wispanow (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

We have a broad range of reliable sources -- scholars, sect experts of the Christian churches, German and international press -- likening the situation in the mid-90s in Germany to a "hysteria". We do not have to define what hysteria is; we simply report what sources have said. There are enough quality sources using the term to make it notable. --JN466 11:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. These statements are verifiable in high-quality reliable sources. You are arguing for the deletion of well-sourced material simply because you disagree with it. That is not a valid reason. At the same time, you are not really bringing a lot of sources to the table that are on-topic, i.e. that specifically address Scientology in Germany, and could be used to add new content. I would be happy to look at such sources. --JN466 12:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Call for verifiable Sources until 2010-03-21

• Although my Statements by Wispanow is mostly incomplete and is
• lacking many details, reasons, proofs and sources which will delivered mostly until March 20, but
• in respect to other editors, especially User:Jayen466, and in intention to give them as much time as possible until March 21, which i think is appropriate due to the severity of my claims that the article Scientology in Germany delivers in main parts a highly biased and highly inappropriate viewpoint violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which i will prove for most parts of the introduction, effecting main parts of the article, until 2010-03-20,
• although it is mostly not needed due to Wikipedia:Verifiability:

This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to information about living persons: unsourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately.,

• i have until now delivered enough evidence in my Final Proofs (read it?) together with 100% Reliable Verifiable Sources and Reliable, Verifiable Sources to challenge

• all sources that claims that human rights, especially freedom of religion, is violated considerably. I call for the primary sources or sources giving otherwise a proof. Sources, even many of them, just mentioning a violation of human rights, are NOT accepted.
• especially the introduction of Scientology in Germany except the first two sentences. Please provide additional sources for all statements. Sources, even many of them, just mentioning a statement, are NOT accepted.
• all sources that are not available; mostly Scholarly sources. Especially i request as much text as possible from
  • all books from Besier, Gerhard, though he lost his job minimum partly as being accused to be biased and inappropriate engaged related to Scientology.
  • Browne, Michael
  • Davis, Derek H
  • Seiwert, Hubert
  • Palmer, Susan J.
  • Weber, Hermann
  • Hendon, David W.
  • Fox, Jonathan

though i have to check if their books are reliable sources. Google online books links will be excellent.

Please use Talk:Scientology in Germany/sources to add the sources. Enough space to state them. Please not only the inline citation: minimum several sentences before and after that.

If in a special case a longer time is needed to provide the sources, please state which source and when it can be presented. Please be aware that in the meantime the statements related to it may be made invisible.

Wispanow (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are the quotes and links that you requested. They've also been added to the subpage you created.

1. Besier, p. 213: "A 4. Dezember 2003 entschied das Verwaltungsgericht Berlin darüber, ob die Aufnahme von Scientology in den Berliner Verfassungsbericht rechtens gewesen sei. Nach einem entsprechenden richterlichen Hinweis entschied das Land Berlin, freiwillig die Passagen über Scientology aus seinen Verfassungsschutzberichten herauszunehmen. Bereits im August 2003 hatte das Berliner Amt für Verfassungsschutz die Beobachtung eingestellt. Berichte, die keine verfassungsfeindlichen Tätigkeiten dokumentieren, dürften dem Gericht zufolge nicht dokumentiert werden." See also Berliner Morgenpost: "Scientology hatte sich in seiner Klage zugleich gegen die Aufnahme der Organisation in den Verfassungsschutzbericht Berlins 2002 gewandt. Dies sei rechtswidrig gewesen, stellte das Gericht fest. Ein Vertreter des Landes räumte in der Verhandlung ein, dass keine verfassungsfeindlichen Bestrebungen festgestellt wurden. Laut Gericht dürften nur aktuelle feindliche Bestrebungen gegen die Verfassung in dem Bericht erwähnt werden."
2. Davis in Besier, Seite 453 (the page number currently given is wrong; it should be p. 453): "Im September 1941 wurde im damaligen Nazi-Deutschland ein Gesetz erlassen, das allen Juden auferlegte, einen großen gelben Stern sichtbar zu tragen, der sie laut Daniel Goldhagen als "sozial Tote" brandmarkte. 55 Jahre später, im Jahre 1996, wurde im Auftrage des deutschen Ministers für Arbeit und Soziales im Rahmen einer Kampagne, die Scientologen bestimmte wirtschafltiche Rechte verwehren sollte, eine Arbeitsanweisung verfaßt, die heute noch Gültigkeit hat und durch welche die Arbeitsämter angewiesen werden, Firmen, die Scientologen gehören, mit einem "S" zu kennzeichnen. Während der Sonderberichterstatter der Vereinten Nationen, der sich mit dem Thema der religiösen Diskriminierung in Deutschland befaßte, zu Recht bemerkte, jedweder Vergleich heutiger Angriffe mit der Behandlung von Juden durch die Nationalsozialisten in den 30er Jahren sei „haltlos und kindisch“, kommt man nicht umhin, an die Redensart zu denken: Wie sich die Dinge geändert haben – und wie sie doch die gleichen geblieben sind." (This is cited for the marking of Scientologist companies with an "S" by the German Arbeitsämter.) [13]
3. Browne: "Together these differences, and the background from which they developed, help to explain how Germany can justify its treatment of the Church of Scientology. What the Scientologists see as unconstitutional persecution, the German government sees as its constitutional duty to protect its people and institutions from subversive influences. To judge Germany's treatment of Scientology by American standards, independent of these considerations, is irresponsible. However, a blanket defense or rationalization of Germany's position would seem to condone the apparent hysteria fueling Scientology's most vigilant attackers. Thus, part of the problem is to avoid becoming desensitized to claims of persecution, without giving credence the sensationalist and historically inaccurate Nazi comparisons. Despite the apparent possibility that Germany is creating more problems for itself than unchecked Scientologists could ever cause – in which case it should relax its position – an examination of the controversy shows that, at least for now, Germany is incapable of trusting its institutions and its citizens enough to love the octopus."
4. Willms: "Zwischen dem Erscheinen der Scientology-Organisation in Deutschland zu Beginn der 1970er Jahre und der Mitte der 1990er Jahre beobachteten Hysterie um diese Erscheinung ..."
5. Seiwert: "By early 1996, public apprehension of sects had taken forms that were properly described as hysteria even by observers who are wholly unsuspected of playing down the dangers caused by new religious movements (Nüchtern, 1997, 1998; Fincke, 1998) [these are Lutheran sect experts]. For reasons that deserve further sociological investigation, the main focus of this hysteria became the Church of Scientology. Although Scientology had been severely criticized and accused of illegal activities in other countries as well, it was in Germany that the fight against Scientology became a major political issue. It is difficult to imagine today the frenzy prevailing in 1995 and 1996. Scientology was perceived as a serious political danger that not only threatened to turn individuals into will-less zombies, but was also conspiring to overthrow the democratic constitution of the state. For the first time, the public campaign against a "sect" was launched by senior politicians, including some federal and state ministers. The "Great Scientology Scare" had a tremendous impact on the public perception of new religious movements. Regarding Scientology as a public enemy became a matter of political correctness, and being suspected of having any relations with it—let alone being a member—led to ostracism."
6. Fincke: "„Die gegenwärtige Hysterie ist nicht sachgemäß“, befindet Andreas Fincke von der Evangelischen Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen. In Deutschland existierten mehrere Dutzend Sekten mit ähnlichen Zielen wie Scientology, so z. B. das Universelle Leben in Würzburg. „Man muß sich fragen, ob nicht das organisierte Verbrechen die größere Gefahr für unser Land ist.“ Hans Liebl, Sektenbeauftragter der Erzdiözese München-Freising, empfiehlt „nüchterne und solide Recherchen, bevor man von einem Scientology-Verbot redet“."
7. Palmer: "... alleging that the highest levels of the American administration have been infiltrated by cults, and "especially by Scientologists". Scientology's declared goals are often misquoted (or mistranslated) in government reports and on antisecte Web sites in order to support this paranoid view. An amusing example appears in a MILS Report, which claims that Scientology's aim is to "clean" the planet. The Scientology motto is "Clear the Planet!" meaning everyone should be audited and erase their engrams so that humanity can become "Clear" (the Scientology version of enlightenment)."
8. Weber: "... fundamentalen Grundsatz der Neutralität und dem damit verbundenen Verzicht des Staates auf jede wertende Stellungnahme im Wettstreit unter den Religionen. Diese Neutralität wird ausgedehnt auch auf das Verhätnis zwischen den Religionen einerseits und Weltanschauungen andererseits: So gewährleistet Art. 4 Abs. 1 GG die Freiheit auch des weltanschaulichen Bekenntnisses; in Art. 140 GG i.V. mit Art. 137 Abs. 7 WRV werden die Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften den Religionsgesellschaften unterschiedslos gleichgestellt."
9. Fox: [14]

By the way, Wispanow, all the books cited in the article have ISBN numbers given. If you click on the ISBN number, you come to Special:BookSources, which includes a link to Google Books in the section "Online text". Many of the books have preview enabled in Google Books, so you can verify them for yourself. If there is anything else you cannot find, let me know. --JN466 10:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the relevant passage from the Essex University Human Rights Centre report the Scientology page referred to. It is partly out of date, but gives a good snapshot of the situation in the mid-90s:

"Scientology is regarded as far the most dangerous ‘sect’ by the German authorities and has been subjected to far-reaching measures by the state. All ministries of federal and state governments are asked to take whatever steps are possible within the law to counter the activities of Scientology, in the fields of taxation, social and labour law, medical law, competition law, criminal law, and even under local by-laws regulating the handing out of leaflets on the street.
The Church of Scientology has made repeated documented submissions to the United Nations and other international bodies on the matter of religious discrimination and intolerance by the German authorities and the private sector, by individuals and communities. The Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, Mr Abdelfattah Amor, has taken up the matters referred to him with the German authorities.
The reports include cases of Scientologists having been dismissed from jobs or appointments in the public sector, in particular in teaching. Others were disciplined. A trainer for the German national fencing team was dismissed for stating in an interview that he enjoyed the books of L. Ron Hubbard. The Federal Minister for Labour has issued a decree barring all Scientologists from operating an employment agency; all permits to operate such an agency, granted to Scientologists, were revoked. The permits of a Scientologist who ran an au pair agency were withdrawn when she refused to sign a form declaring that she was not a Scientologist.
In some towns or states, Scientologists are barred from renting public halls or other spaces. In 1993, a concert in which the American jazz musician, Chick Corea, was to perform was cancelled by the Baden—Würthemberg state Government when it learned that he was a Scientologist. More recently, it was reported that his invitation to perform at a concert in Bavaria was withdrawn; the promoter was informed that he would not receive state subsidies for any event involving this artist’s performance.
Scientologists were banned and, indeed, expelled from the main political parties until this policy was held to be unlawful by the courts. Since then, however, some parties have resolved to exclude Scientologists in defiance of court rulings. The authorities also actively sponsor ‘enlightenment’ campaigns in which the public is warned against Scientology (and other ‘sects’). In some states, such ‘enlightenment‘ has been made compulsory in schools. The information handed out in these campaigns is couched in vituperative language and, according to the Church of Scientology, contains numerous factual errors, as well as pejorative value judgements. Politicians have called for social ostracism of Scientologists.
The authorities condone and actively support discrimination against Scientologists in the private sector, with the aim of excluding Scientologists from economic life and reducing the social and financial support for members and their families which comes from earning income or engaging in business. The Federal Minister of Labour has called for a ban on all Scientologists from all occupations which ‘intersect with society’, such as schools, the government and business companies. Several state and city governments send out forms to all private contractual partners of such public bodies, requiring them to declare in writing that they have nothing to do with Scientology or the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard. The authorities warn that Scientology tries to ‘infiltrate’ business and commercial interests.
The private sector has responded to states’ initiatives by trying to exclude Scientologists from all business activities, initiating a further round of discrimination and intolerance. Board members, company directors and employees have been dismissed from their jobs after being ‘exposed’ as Scientologists. Banks refuse to allow Scientologists to open bank accounts; several will not do business with Scientologists. Trade associations and Chambers of Commerce issue leaflets, based on official information, warning businesses against Scientology. Conferences are organised which explain how businesses can ‘spot’ Scientologists (and Jehovah’s Witnesses) and what action they can take to exclude them, such as the issuing of forms similar to the government-issued ones. Lists of companies allegedly owned or run by Scientologists are distributed in business circles.
Self-declarations and dissociations are part of the intolerance. Some companies have taken out advertisements stating that they are not Scientologists and would never have anything to do with Scientologists. A well-known television talk-show host, Thomas Gottschalk, after being ‘accused’ of being a Scientologist, announced that he had nothing to do with Scientology and would sever his relationship with a Scientologist friend.
The official policy provides a context of intolerance in which particular instances of toleration are to be viewed as exceptions to the general rule. For instance, the Hamburg state prosecutor, while concluding (after extensive investigations) that the Church of Scientology was not unlawful, approvingly quoted the Munich state prosecutor’s view that, none the less, ‘the ideas, aims and practices of the Scientology-organisation are in many ways incompatible with the values of the Basic Law’.
Scientology is denied its identification as a religion or belief system, official policy maintaining instead that religion is simply a cover for a purely commercial organisation which is not entitled to the constitutional protection of religious freedom and is a threat to democratic values. The duty of the state is to protect the general public against perceived dangers by ensuring that ‘sects’ do not ‘infiltrate’ the organs and institutions of the state or the private economy. Some therefore call for the Church of Scientology in particular to be placed under surveillance by the secret service. The government keeps the question of whether the Church of Scientology should be declared a prohibited association under active review.
The Federal Labour Court has ruled that Scientology is not a religion and not entitled to the protection of the constitutional freedom of religion; however, this matter has yet to be finally determined. Indeed, the authorities have called for the law to be reviewed and amended if current law cannot stop the activities of Scientology. Some individual cases are now pending, or about to be lodged, with the Constitutional Court." --JN466 14:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources for uncited sentences in the lead section

Particular antagonism in Germany

• Richardson, Oxford University Press: ""The situation concerning Scientology in Germany has been especially controversial ... The level of animus between the German federal government and Scientology has been high. And some German Lands (states) have been particularly rigorous in efforts to exert control over Scientology ..."
• New York Times: "Europeans in general bear more suspicion toward Scientology than Americans do, but Germans are considered particularly antagonistic ..."
• Bromley/Cowan: "Recently, some of the most ardent official opposition to Scientology occurred in France and Germany."

German domestic intelligence services have monitored the organization's activities

• Multiple sources in text. English website of the German intelligence services confirming ongoing monitoring: http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/en/en_fields_of_work/scientology/

The German government does not recognize Scientology as a religion

• Deutschlandradio: "die Bundesregierung allerdings betont immer wieder, Scientology sei keine Religions- oder Weltanschauungsgemeinschaft." ("The federal government emphasises time and again that Scientology is not a religious or worldview community")
• "Die Bundesregierung hat jüngst bekräftigt, dass sie Scientology nicht als Religions- bzw. Weltanschauungsgemeinschaft ansehe." ("The Federal Government has recently affirmed that it does not consider Scientology a religious or ideological community." --JN466 09:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It views it as an abusive business masquerading as a religion and believes that it pursues political goals that conflict with the values enshrined in the German constitution

• New York Times: "German officials consider Scientology an extremist organization dedicated to bilking its parishioners of money. The German Government has barred Scientologists from membership in major political parties and placed the organization under surveillance."
• Time Magazine: "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.'" --JN466 09:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Political and economic restrictions

• See Essex University Human Rights Centre text above, and sources in the article's "Sect filters" section.

Polls

• Sourced in article to Time and Der Spiegel. --JN466 09:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hysteria sentence

I have noted the suggestion to include this sentence "Fears and concerns about new religious movements reached a high level in the mid-nineties, becoming focused mainly on the Church of Scientology. Many commentators later used the word 'hysteria' to describe the public reaction [citations]." And I have noted Wispanow's concerns. On reading some of the sources quoted, such as: "The main focus of this hysteria became the Church of Scientology", "the latest in a wave of anti-Scientology "hysteria" to hit Germany", "the anti-cult climate had gained a dynamism that almost turned into a hysteria Of collective fear. Scientology was perceived as a serious threat to internal security" there is an initial impression that "hysteria" is an appropriate word; however, closer examination shows that the word "hysteria" is often placed in quotation marks, or preceded by "near", as shown in these links. I feel a closer recording of the situation could be along the lines of "Fears and concerns about new religious movements reached a high level in the mid-nineties, becoming focused mainly on the Church of Scientology. Commentators such as Fincke and Nüchtern used the term 'hysteria' to describe the public reaction,[15]...."

I don't read German, and the online translations are not very good, but I get the impression that a number of the German media sources are not so much saying there is hysteria as warning against it, or saying that there is no need for it. Is this [16] saying that there is no cause for hysteria? And is this saying much the same thing? Might there actually be some legitimate concerns in Germany that the political reactions toward Scientology are excessive, and that the "hysteria" is more of a politically generated manipulation of the media? Might Wispanow's concerns have some basis? Are there sources which do not totally accept that Germany is hysterically hostile to Scientology? SilkTork *^YES! 11:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, there are calmer elements in German public discourse (mainly the broadsheets) who criticise the hysteria, or warn against it. As for your examples, the second English quote is actually a Scientology spokesperson; so we have to take it with a grain of salt. The German Focus article quotes an official saying, "There is no grounds for hysteria". The taz article says, "Alle anderen flüchten sich unter dem Druck der hysterischen Debatte, die hauptsächlich von einer Aura des Geheimnisvollen zehrt, in ziellosen Aktionismus" ("All others respond to the pressure of the hysterical debate, which is mainly nourished by an aura of the mysterious, by escaping into blind actionism [i.e. action for action's sake, just to be seen to be doing something]"). The taz article's title is, "DIE FORDERUNG NACH EINEM SCIENTOLOGY-VERBOT IST HYSTERISCH Triumph der Verschwörungstheorie" ("The demand for a Scientology ban is hysterical -- the triumph of the conspiracy theory"; note that "hysterical" here means "indicative of hysteria", not "hysterical" as in "hysterically funny"). This again refers to the fact that the memes have become more important than the underlying facts, a point that Schön makes on pp. 12–13. Schön adds on p. 13 that "A markedly distinct frame appears in almost all of the editorials which can be characterized as diagnosing mutual hysteria and hypocrisy." I think there is broad agreement that there is, or was, a kind of hysteria in parts of the public debate, or elements of the populace. Even as people criticise it, or call for calm, they affirm that it exists (in their view). --JN466 13:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I get the impression from Schön that there is far more of an internal debate about the Scientology issue than is reported in the international press, and that much of the anti-Scientology stance is political rather than social. This seems to accord with some of Wispanow's concerns. That is not to say that if these impressions are supportable that there shouldn't be mention of the "hysteria" comments in the article, but rather that these comments need to be fine tuned to identify who is reporting "hysteria", along with alternative sources, such as Schön, which indicate that the German people are calmer and more divided on the issue than is being reported in the international press. I am not certain that this version covers enough of the debate being carried on in the "elite press" in which anti-Scientology German officials come in for "scornful comments". Would you say there is room for a bit more balance? SilkTork *^YES! 14:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if we can somehow differentiate it, and tie it to sources. The German broadsheets' viewpoint is worth mentioning, as is internal criticism of politicians (the article mentions that the ban proposal, for example, was immediately and widely criticised by German politicians).

On the other hand, social ostracism really is widespread, and individual Scientologists meet with intolerance. The story of the national fencing trainer described above, or the TV presenter having to distance himself from his Scientologist friend to keep his job, these are things that I believe would happen in much the same way today as they did then: public opinion would not support a Scientologist, or even someone with links to Scientology, occupying such a position.

Would you like to propose a wording? --JN466 15:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, turning this over in my head, I can't resist having a go myself: "Concern in some quarters was so intense that many commentators – scholars in Germany and abroad, German church spokesmen, as well as sections of the German and international press – began to liken it to an "hysteria"." Cited to Browne, Schön, Seiwert and Willms; we could add a sampling of German and international press sources as well.

Incidentally, here is a critical English-language article from Der Spiegel concerning the recent "hysterics" surrounding Cruise's starring role in Valkyrie, and his wanting to film in historic buildings in Berlin. I am of half a mind to mention the controversy in the article, as it was very widely reported. (Cruise was allowed to film eventually, after months of national debate, and the movie was well received in Germany.) --JN466 16:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Our article Valkyrie (film) has more background info, if you are interested. --JN466 16:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I will consider a wording, though it will be inexact. It would be along the lines of "Concerns about new religious movements reached a high level in the mid-nineties, becoming focused mainly on the Church of Scientology. Commentators such as Fincke and Nüchtern used the term 'hysteria' to describe the public reaction,[17] a term that was echoed in sections of the German and international press; however, Brigitte Schön, a theology professor at the University of Bonn, commented that editorials in the German press pointed out hypocrisies, were scornful of government officials, and attacked politicians who joined the boycott against Mission:Impossible;[18] Focus reported an official as saying there were no grounds for hysteria,[19] and Ralph_Bollmann in Taz felt that calls for a ban were not rational.[20] SilkTork *^YES! 18:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. One thing to watch out for is that we don't mix articles from (or describing) different decades in that paragraph; the taz article, for example, is from two years ago, when the failed ban attempt was initiated, whereas the other sources relate to the 90s. But the taz article might fit in the ban section. --JN466 20:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of broadsheets, here is another interesting article in The New York Times, citing Josef Joffe, the editor of Die Zeit, one of the most respected quality newspapers in Germany. --JN466 12:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for your comments about Scientology in Germany. Regarding the:

• Sources Jayen466 has delivered, i have much to few text to see that Besier, Gerhard and all of his co-authors are reliable sources, and i challenged Besier, Gerhard for being biased at all, which relates to all his co-authors somehow, and i have additional authors listed. The ISBN number is not sufficient, please provide a lot more text or links as "google-books".
• I already cannot see any national or wide-spreaded hysteria or fears, but this is not my main claim about the article.
• Moderated discussion: Many thanks to SilkTork. To prove neutrality or its violation of main parts of Scientology in Germany needs a lot more time than expected, and additionally i have limited time. There are delays of approximately 1 to 2 weeks. Probably this [21] moderated discussion is not needed now. Again, thanks.
• "Good article" and "POV" claims: i think i have challenged immense parts of the article, given arguments and sources which are enough reasons for a few weeks to:
  • Remove the "Good article" valuation
  • Keep the "POV" claim

in the meantime. Wispanow (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As to Besier and his co-authors satisfying WP:RS: The CV of Derek H. Davis, states that Derek H. Davis, B.A., M.A., J.D., Ph.D., is a graduate of Baylor University and Baylor Law School and holds a Master of Arts in Church-State Studies from Baylor University and a Doctor of Philosophy in Humanities from the University of Texas at Dallas. He is Professor of Political Science and the Director of the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, which offers M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Church-State Studies, conducts research and publishes books on church-state relations and religious liberty in national and international contexts, maintains the largest research library in the world pertaining to religious liberty and church-state relations, and sponsors conferences and lectureships on various church-state themes. His chapter mentioning the "S" marking of Scientologist companies in government employment offices was published in a book edited by Gerhard Besier (Besier in German Wikipedia) and Erwin K. Scheuch. Besier is a Lutheran theologian, currently holds the Chair in European Studies at Dresden University, previously was the director of the Hannah Arendt Institute for Research on Totalitarianism at Dresden University, and is a visiting professor at universities in the United States, Sweden and Poland, as well as a member of parliament in the Land (German state) of Saxony. He is also the editor of Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte, a German academic journal on church history. Erwin K. Scheuch was one of the most prominent sociologists Germany has ever produced, and was for 25 years a prominent member of the German conservative party, the CDU. Wispanow questions the RS status of these scholars just as he has accused Time magazine and the BBC, or indeed any source that voices any criticism of Germany, as "racist". What is the point of this discussion? Are Wispanow's personal views supposed to take precedence over the totality of published scholarly works and press reports? Are we supposed to be writing an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, or an encyclopedia based on Wispanow's personal convictions about what constitutes "racism" or "hysteria"? --JN466 23:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wispanow, I understand your comment about limited time. You are free to disengage from this moderated discussion, and I can investigate further with Jayen the POV aspects of the article. As well as an admin who deals in dispute resolution, I am also an experienced and respected GA reviewer. I am willing to look over the article to check if it meets GA criteria, specially as regards NPOV, and to point out areas where I feel it needs attention. You must understand though that if you leave this discussion that you are doing so before it has been completed, therefore if you edit the Scientology in Germany article you would be doing so outside the terms that were agreed, with the likelihood that you would be returned to Arbitration Enforcement.

What I propose is that if you wish to withdraw, that this discussion is closed, and I open a Wikipedia:Good article reassessment on the article to look into the question of NPOV. At the end of the GAR the article will either have been passed as being appropriately neutral, or will be delisted as a Good Article. You must, however, understand that under the procedures for an individual GAR the decision on delisting will be mine and mine alone. If at the end of the process I do not delist, and you feel that there are still POV issues, there are appropriate procedures that you can follow and I will advise you of them at the time. So, if you are not satisfied with the result, please come to me with your concerns, and I will help you with your concerns. Do not revert the article or place any POV tags on it, as that will likely end up with you being returned to AE, getting a topic ban, and your concerns regarding the article not being addressed.

If you understand all that I have said, and you agree to the proposal please let me know. SilkTork *^YES! 01:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, SilkTork. Some edit-conflict. I know i am free to disengage of this moderated discussion, and clearly did not. I just wanted to help you for removing the need to look at this discussion and the article several times a day.

I currently see nearly no support for my claimed viewpoint, which is disappointing for me and this has consequences:

• I have to deliver a lot more details and start at the basics to be convincing or deliver a proof
• To be convincing and better understandable and just having a structure i write a coherent report. This takes a lot more time than expected: i currently think about additional 30 working hours, till i have something worth to discuss about; over 50 working hours (approximately 100 hours) needed until a racist viewpoint of the article can be proven. The analysis of the introduction can be done earlier. Surely this can´t be done on an afternoon or even not on a weekend. And i have to run my little engineering company.
• I never looked at any GAR, and seen now that it takes effort to do this. If you are convinced now, that the article is not good, do it, otherwise it will be best to wait till i have delivered some things. Same with POV or any other edit; i read this stuff for many years and will endure it for a few additional weeks.

I currently see me not being topic-banned for any article, and are not accepting any topic-ban or limits for any article. But be sure i know that there is nearly no support for my viewpoint, and therefore it will be highly unwise to do any not clearly proven edit. This is no withdraw from this discussion, but i do not think it is needed especially now and probably even not in the future. And i think it will be appropriate and nice to finally close the already archived AE case as well, but of course you are the admin. Absolutely sure i will deliver all proofs promised. The delays are unpleasant, but difficult foreseeable.

@EdJohnston: please understand, my claims are mainly NOT about ANY Wikipedia article. I already have evidence, have already given few proofs and presented 100% Reliable Sources and i can, have promised to and will deliver everything promised. Absolutely independent of this discussion, any article, accusations, topic bans or whole Wikipedia and all its editors.

Monkey parable: thank you for informing me that this can be misunderstood and used to attack me.

There will be NEVER a "Understanding Human Rights in Germany in 40 hours" course which explains everything to everybody, although i try to write something like that. (Never giving up hope.) But reading repeatedly will probably help. Currently incomplete.

@Jayen466: a lot of text, and nothing directly regarding to my statements.

Wispanow (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wispanow, please understand that there is no point in your spending 30 or 50 hours writing a report "proving" that the article or its sources are "racist", or writing a course on human rights in Germany. I am not interested in reading any such effort, and I am not prepared to spend weeks waiting for you to finish your report—because it is an exercise in futility.

Wikipedia articles are based on published sources. If you want the article to say that the coverage of Scientology in Germany by Time Magazine or the BBC is coloured by anti-German sentiment, then find reliable sources that say so, and post them here. I promise you I will look at them, and if they are good sources, they will go into the article. But in the absence of such sources, your continuing to assert that reporting in mainstream English-language sources is somehow "racist" is a waste of everyone's time. It is also offensive.

Do you understand? Your views of the coverage Germany has received in English-language sources are irrelevant to Wikipedia if there are no published sources that agree with your point of view. Even if you somehow convinced me that the journalists at Time and BBC were anti-German, I still would not exclude Time and the BBC from this article, because these are mainstream English-language sources and your and my personal conviction that they are "racist" would still be a complete irrelevance. Is that clear?

Whether you, Wispanow, can see indications of Scientology "hysteria" in Germany or not is equally irrelevant to this article. On the other hand, if a broad spectrum of reliably published authors—including German and international scholars, German and international press, as well as spokespeople of mainstream German churches—diagnose such a hysteria, or something resembling hysteria, that is something we can report in this article.

I spent a considerable amount of time looking up cited sources at your request, typing out excerpts, and posting google books links where google books previews are available, here and on the sources subpage you created. Of the 23 scholarly sources cited in the article at the time of writing, 8 are available online, just a click away, and for 9 of the others I provided excerpts and available links.

I have received no thanks from you—just a request to do again what I had already done. Your saying you require me to type out even more of the texts so that you can decide whether these sources meet WP:RS is an imposition, and frankly I have no confidence that it would make any difference to you if I posted ten pages of each. Deciding whether sources are reliable or not is not based on the length of an excerpt, but on the author's and publisher's credentials. You have not put forward any cogent argument why these scholars should fail WP:RS.

• Davis, Besier and Scheuch don't just meet WP:RS, they are (or were, in Scheuch's case) scholars of international standing. [22][23][24]
• Browne is a Doctor of Jurisprudence (though he wasn't at the time of writing), and his paper is cited by quality sources in google scholar and google books. (This paper is currently used for only a single ancillary reference. I plan to use it more widely in future, because it occupies a middle ground–it is quite sympathetic to Germany, explains the German cultural, religious and legal background, and argues that the harshest criticism Germany has received from the US fails to take into account Germany's circumstances.)
• Gerald Willms is a German scholar of religion who has written the most comprehensive German scholarly book to date on Scientology, is consulted by the German media as an expert on Scientology, and has contributed to a book on Scientology published by Oxford University Press. His book has 30 citations in the German Wikipedia article on Scientology (most of these, I hasten to add, were not added by me).
• Hubert Seiwert is a Professor of General and Comparative Religion at Leipzig University. He is widely published and cited and was a member of the German government's Enquete Commission in the late 90s, included along with a number of politicians for his subject matter expertise.
• Susan J. Palmer is another prominent scholar working in this field.
• Hermann Weber is an attorney and an Honorary Professor of Public Law at Frankfurt University.
• Fox's book is published by Cambridge University Press, one of the most reputable publishers in the world.

These sources do not just meet WP:RS, they are generally the type of sources that are most highly valued in Wikipedia. (Hendon I have never seen, as I was not the editor who added this material, but what is cited to it is corroborated by other sources anyway, and there is no doubt that the journal in question meets WP:RS. The user who added this material was User:John Carter.)

The press and government sources used in the article are online and a click away. You can thus verify yourself that the article says what the sources are saying. They are, overwhelmingly, German, British and American mainstream sources.

Furthermore, I note that you say, "my claims are mainly NOT about ANY Wikipedia article". If that is so, then please stop using article talk pages to tell us about your opinions and personal analyses of this topic. Either bring reliably published sources to the table that cover this specific topic of "Scientology in Germany" and can be used to broaden our coverage, or walk away from this article.

I am in favour of closing this moderated discussion now and moving on towards a GA review, as proposed by SilkTork, to establish whether or not the article's POV departs from that of the pool of available sources on this topic. If SilkTork considers that adjustments or expansions are necessary, those changes will be made.

Rest assured that any future deletions of sourced material by you, or insertions of unsourced material, will result in a return visit to WP:AE. --JN466 14:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot more text, but again not one answer: again, i challenged Besier not because he has academic degrees, but because he minimum partly lost his job because he was accused to be biased and inappropriately engaged Pro-Scientology. And i need more text.

Wikipedia is mostly democratic organized: you are not dominating the rules of WP:AE. And the future is sometimes surprising. Wispanow (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that his stance on Scientology has been controversial in Germany (a fact which is mentioned in this article) does not change the fact that he qualifies as a RS. Besier is still at Dresden University, by the way, currently holding the chair for European Studies there. More specifically, he is a reliable source for this piece of information, which is all he is cited for:

"Am 4. Dezember 2003 entschied das Verwaltungsgericht Berlin darüber, ob die Aufnahme von Scientology in den Berliner Verfassungsbericht rechtens gewesen sei. Nach einem entsprechenden richterlichen Hinweis entschied das Land Berlin, freiwillig die Passagen über Scientology aus seinen Verfassungsschutzberichten herauszunehmen. Bereits im August 2003 hatte das Berliner Amt für Verfassungsschutz die Beobachtung eingestellt. Berichte, die keine verfassungsfeindlichen Tätigkeiten dokumentieren, dürften dem Gericht zufolge nicht dokumentiert werden."

("On 4 December 2003 the Administrative Court of Berlin ruled on whether the inclusion of Scientology in reports of the Berlin Office for the Protection of the Constitution ["OPC", equivalent to the FBI, or MI5] had been lawful. Following a corresponding judicial notice, the State of Berlin decided to voluntarily remove the passages about Scientology from its OPC reports. The Berlin OPC had already discontinued its observation in August 2003. The court ruled that reports which do not detail any anti-constitutional activities must not be documented.")

Are you challenging the accuracy of this piece of information? If so, on what grounds?

By the way, I posted a google books link, this one here, above and on the sources page, several days ago, so if you "need more text", just click on it. --JN466 23:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just realised that while google books lists Gerhard Besier as the author of the book, he has not even written the chapter in question, which is in fact by Johannes Neumann and Renate-Maria Besier. --JN466 23:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not checked the accuracy, but at a first look it seems appropriate. Except: the Berlin Office for the Protection of the Constitution is:

• Not a police at all
• No military intelligence agency at all
• Not federal.

That does not mean that FBI or MI5 are not monitoring Scientology. But due to the Top-level of Human rights in Germany, especially compared to the LOW STANDARD OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN USA and partly UK, humans, groups and/or organizations of any kind, race or religion have the inviolable Right of Privacy including not being monitored in any way, if there is not appropriate reason. In case of FBI or MI5 there is even no comparable public information or control.

Additionally:

1. that does not mean that believers or the community of believers were monitored; but their organization independent of religion
2. that does not mean that the Freedom of Religion is not fully protected for believers, their community or even their legal organization, independent of monitoring
3. different Scientology organizations in different areas of Germany or at different times behave differently, so there is or was enough reason for monitoring seen
4. Scientology organizations in different countries behave differently, especially relating to Germany there can be a viewpoint that Scientology Headquarters in USA are highly aggressive and in main points irrational related to Germany, which gives not enough reason to monitor them, but aggressive extremism triggers attention.

Wispanow (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarity request

I am unclear if this moderated discussion is to close and a GAR opened, or if Wispanow wishes to continue with the discussion. I would not run a GAR and a dispute resolution at the same time. It has to be one or the other. Would both of you please state if you wish the discussion to continue or a GAR to be opened. SilkTork *^YES! 22:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to move on to a GAR, as these discussions are jejune, divorced from on-topic sources, and don't benefit the article one way or the other. --JN466 01:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This moderated discussion can be closed now, although it had interesting points. A GAR can be opened now, but if it fails to remove the "good", it has to be repeated. Wispanow (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion closed

This moderated discussion is now closed. An individual GAR has been initiated: Talk:Scientology in Germany/GA3. SilkTork *^YES! 10:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by User:EdJohnston (moved from moderated discussion to article talk page)

The original WP:AE problem (in my view) was that Wispanow was making controversial changes to the article and claiming that the article was not neutral, but when challenged, he could not back up his view with sources. Apparently he still does not have time to find suitable sources, so I would support User:SilkTork's position on this. Some of Wispanow's comments here in the moderated discussion begin to push the limits of a proper discussion, like:

"Thats why i often call German politicians screaming little monkeys, trying anything to get attention and look important, while they are dancing to the music of the courts (in human rights, but many areas are related to this)."

This sort of comment suggests a personal agenda about political matters in Germany and not a sincere desire to add neutral content to the article. Wikipedia is not about to describe German politicians as screaming monkeys. I would welcome Wispanow's withdrawal of his comment about the monkeys. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)