Talk:Scientology in Germany

Scientology in Germany was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 17, 2009). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Scientology Start‑class

This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Germany Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The following text was removed:

Some of the German courts' decisions regarding Scientology have met with protest within Germany itself. The 1998 case Baden-Wurttemberg sent to the court received a protest of several thousand Scientologists in Berlin. In that case, the course was returned to the state court of Baden-Wurttemberg. ^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As of this revision, the following sources:

3. Bverwg.de - Court documents

8. German intelligence report

11,12. Administrative court of Berlin document

13. Upper administrative court of Saarland document

17. Government conference report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

Comments

Prose issues

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

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

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

Content dispute

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to User:Voxpopulis

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

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

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

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

What Kent actually says is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The statement made in the article is,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you call this unsourced?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the Editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Kent article given in the External Links mentions that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

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

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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