| Revision as of 17:18, 14 February 2009 editMoni3 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users27,282 edits →Revert: statement← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:17, 24 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,285 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (508 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header|search=y}} | |||
| {{GA nominee|16:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)|page=1| subtopic=|status=on hold}} | |||
| {{ArticleHistory | |||
| {{WikiProject Scientology|class=Start}} | |||
| |action1=GAN | |||
| {{WikiProject Germany|class=Start}} | |||
| |action1date=09:14, 17 February 2009 | |||
| |action1link=Talk:Scientology in Germany/GA1 | |||
| |action1result=failed | |||
| |action1oldid=271305395 | |||
| |action2=GAN | |||
| ==Text removed== | |||
| |action2date=22:56, 7 November 2009 | |||
| The following text was removed: | |||
| |action2link=Talk:Scientology in Germany/GA2 | |||
| |action2result=listed | |||
| |action2oldid=324536781 | |||
| |action3=PR | |||
| 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. <ref name=C&S2>{{cite journal |last=Hendon |first=David W.|author= |authorlink= |coauthors=Jay Craddock |date= |year=1998 |month= Winter|day= |title= |journal= Journal of Church & State|volume=40 |issue=1 |page= |pages=219 |publisher= |location= |issn= |pmid= |pmc= |doi= |bibcode= |oclc= |id= |url= |language= |format= |accessdate= |laysummary= |laysource= |laydate= |quote=}}</ref> | |||
| |action3date=14:34, 22 February 2010 | |||
| |action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Scientology in Germany/archive1 | |||
| |action3result=reviewed | |||
| |action3oldid=344109156 | |||
| |action4=GAR | |||
| I don't understand what it means; will try to access the source later. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 19:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| |action4date=09:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Fair enough. The admittedly poor phrasing was just to indicate that there was a protest of the Court's decision in that case by a body of Scientologists. ] (]) 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| |action4link=Talk:Scientology in Germany/GA3 | |||
| ::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. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| |action4result=kept | |||
| |action4oldid=370062785 | |||
| | topic = Culture and society | |||
| == Primary sources in "Criticism of Germany's stance" == | |||
| |currentstatus=GA | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Notice|This article is subject to ] ]. See ]}} | |||
| {{Notice|{{find}}}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA| | |||
| {{WikiProject Germany|importance=mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Scientology|importance=mid}} | |||
| }} | |||
| ==The Plakat== | |||
| 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. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 19:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| For reference, here are the two cited sources: | |||
| :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. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 20:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Using a primary source because it is referred to by a secondary sources is not a legitimate reason to do so. If that is the case, then please use said secondary sources instead. I have placed a primary sources tag on the page. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::We are using the US State Dept. report quoting the United Nations report, as well as quoting various papers quoting the US State Dept. report, with the primary sources given as ancillary cites. The German Bundestag source is drawn up by the Scientific Services division of the German parliament; I am not sure whether that makes it a primary source or not, but I would argue that it is an appropriate and authoritative source here in this context. Do you disagree? Which other sources are you concerned about? <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As of 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. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 21:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Nach Auffassung des Oberwaltungsgerichts stellt das Plakat einen Grundrechtseingriff dar, den der Antragsteller nicht dulden muss. Er könne den Schutz der Glaubens- und Religionsfreiheit (Art. 4 Abs. 1 GG) für sich in Anspruch nehmen. Das Bezirksamt habe seinen Verdacht, Scientology verfolge ausschließlich wirtschaftliche Zwecke, im Verfahren des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes nicht belegen können. Das Plakat sei als eine Warnung vor dem Antragsteller zu verstehen, für die das Bezirksamt nicht zuständig sei, weil Angelegenheiten der Religions- und Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften nach der gesetzlichen Zuständigkeitsverteilung in die Kompetenz der Senatsverwaltung fielen. Weder sei das Aufstellen des Plakats durch die Befugnis der Bezirke gedeckt, Beschlüsse der Bezirksverordnetenversammlung bekannt zu machen, noch könne sich das Bezirksamt auf eine Allzuständigkeit berufen, die mit Blick auf ihre Selbstverwaltungskompetenz lediglich den Gemeinden zukomme. | |||
| *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, <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Nach Auffassung des OVG stellt das Plakat einen Grundrechtseingriff dar, den Scientology nicht dulden müsse, da die Organisation den Schutz der Glaubens- und Religionsfreiheit für sich in Anspruch nehmen könne. | |||
| :::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. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 21:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Das Plakat sei als Warnung vor der Organisation zu verstehen, für die das Bezirksamt laut OVG nicht zuständig sei. Angelegenheiten der Religions- und Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften fielen in die Kompetenz des Senats. Zudem habe das Bezirksamt seinen Verdacht, Scientology verfolge ausschließlich wirtschaftliche Zwecke, im Verfahren nicht belegen können. --''']]''' 16:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The notability of institutions such as the US State Dept. is not under question here. And the issue is certainly not that of being a self-published source. The fact is, court documents, intelligence reports, and other historical documents can not be used for citations of fact. In the instance where you describe the UN statement, usage is debatable because it is not an interpretation but a quote. However, it remains a primary source and can <s>not</s> only be used for descriptive claims. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think you got that the wrong way round. PS may ''only'' be used for descriptive claims, and not for interpretation or analysis. I could argue that we are merely describing here what the US State Dept. said, but I won't do that, because I generally support your drive to aim for secondary sources. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You got me. But what I meant to say was that primary sources can't be used to establish a fact, and must be directly attributed as having an opinion when said opinion is represented. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Maybe the best way to deal with this would be to seek additional input from people familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines at ]? ] (]) 21:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I have created a relevant ] over there. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 22:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Perhaps ] would be a better place. Mind you, that board is not exactly a hive of buzzing activity. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 10:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Past tense== | |||
| == Churches and Missions in Germany? == | |||
| The article frequently uses the past tense where present tense would be appropriate. Also, it seems to have a critical tone of Germany, more excusing than attacking, but nevertheless just not taking into account that someone might as well say "yes we do, and rightly so".--] (]) 18:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Anybody can edit. If you have changes, just make them. If they are valid, they will stick. If another editor objects, there are ways to get ]. ] (]) 19:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| 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. ] (]) 17:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| :Do you mean listing specific cities that have Churches or Missions? ]. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Basically, yeah. For most other large churches, we have lists of all the administrative sections of countries, and the same probably should apply here. Maybe something indicating their locations, possibly in chronological order and indicating which if any missions got raised to Church status and when that happened. ] (]) 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It will be hard to source this sort of thing to a secondary source, but I'll have a look. Cheers, <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 17:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Haven't found an awful lot, but have added some info. | |||
| :::I was thinking of listing the article for GA one of these days; do you think there are any major (or minor) issues to be addressed, or gaps to be filled, before we do so? I can think of one – some GA reviewers might well request that we use a consistent citation template format, which at present we don't. But other than that, I think the article offers a useful summary of the topic now. Cheers, <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 19:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| == Comment == | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120703051903/http://www.ad-hoc-news.de/hamburger-spd-fordert-erhalt-der-scientology-arbeitsgruppe--/de/News/21604653 to http://www.ad-hoc-news.de/hamburger-spd-fordert-erhalt-der-scientology-arbeitsgruppe--/de/News/21604653 | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219142633/http://www.lfv.bayern.de/service/berichte/ to http://www.lfv.bayern.de/service/berichte/ | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110125055319/http://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/analysen/2007/Rechtliche_Fragen_zu_Religions-_und_Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften.pdf to http://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/analysen/2007/Rechtliche_Fragen_zu_Religions-_und_Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften.pdf | |||
| *Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scientology-fakten.de/scientology-mitgliederzahl-in-deutschland-europa-usa-und-weltweit.html | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| 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. --] (]) 16:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| :The Berlin Administrative Court upon that; the article you recall may have been in relation to that decision. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 17:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 04:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Found it. Quite a lot of press on the statement. Interior Minister(?) . 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"''' :<blockquote>"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.<br><br>"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."</blockquote>This is exactly the point Sabine Weber made a year previous and the point that I mention in my previous post:<blockquote>Sabine Weber, president of the Church of Scientology in Berlin, called Schaeuble's remarks "unrealistic" and "absurd."<br><br>She said the interior minister based his evaluation "on a few sentences out of 500,000 pages of Scientological literature."</blockquote> --] (]) 18:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Number of Members == | |||
| :Thanks, had been googling and beavering away and only just noticed your post. I'll have a look at these. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for these, incorporated in the section on the ban. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{Talk:Scientology in Germany/GA1}} | |||
| I have updated the government figure for the number of Scientology members in Germany. Unfortunately, I have not found a recent membership figure from the Organisation itself. If anyone does find a Scientologist website that says how many members they have in Germany, please do update the figure and source in the opening paragraph.] (]) 12:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Hollywood Lobby == | |||
| *Good article? I don't think so. No mention of the Hollywood lobby as detailed in . | |||
| *He sums up the issues clearly in | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| *'''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. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| * 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 | |||
| * 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. ] (]) 15:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Revert == | |||
| *re: ]. | |||
| *Please state why you believe your is valid. | |||
| *We disagree with your actions and would like to request a . | |||
| *Thanks. ] (]) 16:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Placing this here. I have warned ] on 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. --] (]) 17:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:17, 24 February 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology in Germany article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
 | Scientology in Germany has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is subject to Arbitration Committee sanctions. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
The Plakat
For reference, here are the two cited sources:
- Nach Auffassung des Oberwaltungsgerichts stellt das Plakat einen Grundrechtseingriff dar, den der Antragsteller nicht dulden muss. Er könne den Schutz der Glaubens- und Religionsfreiheit (Art. 4 Abs. 1 GG) für sich in Anspruch nehmen. Das Bezirksamt habe seinen Verdacht, Scientology verfolge ausschließlich wirtschaftliche Zwecke, im Verfahren des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes nicht belegen können. Das Plakat sei als eine Warnung vor dem Antragsteller zu verstehen, für die das Bezirksamt nicht zuständig sei, weil Angelegenheiten der Religions- und Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften nach der gesetzlichen Zuständigkeitsverteilung in die Kompetenz der Senatsverwaltung fielen. Weder sei das Aufstellen des Plakats durch die Befugnis der Bezirke gedeckt, Beschlüsse der Bezirksverordnetenversammlung bekannt zu machen, noch könne sich das Bezirksamt auf eine Allzuständigkeit berufen, die mit Blick auf ihre Selbstverwaltungskompetenz lediglich den Gemeinden zukomme. (This is the court press release)
- Nach Auffassung des OVG stellt das Plakat einen Grundrechtseingriff dar, den Scientology nicht dulden müsse, da die Organisation den Schutz der Glaubens- und Religionsfreiheit für sich in Anspruch nehmen könne.
- Das Plakat sei als Warnung vor der Organisation zu verstehen, für die das Bezirksamt laut OVG nicht zuständig sei. Angelegenheiten der Religions- und Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften fielen in die Kompetenz des Senats. Zudem habe das Bezirksamt seinen Verdacht, Scientology verfolge ausschließlich wirtschaftliche Zwecke, im Verfahren nicht belegen können. (Coverage in Tagesspiegel) --JN466 16:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Past tense
The article frequently uses the past tense where present tense would be appropriate. Also, it seems to have a critical tone of Germany, more excusing than attacking, but nevertheless just not taking into account that someone might as well say "yes we do, and rightly so".--217.251.70.221 (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Anybody can edit. If you have changes, just make them. If they are valid, they will stick. If another editor objects, there are ways to get WP:Third opinions. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Scientology in Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120703051903/http://www.ad-hoc-news.de/hamburger-spd-fordert-erhalt-der-scientology-arbeitsgruppe--/de/News/21604653 to http://www.ad-hoc-news.de/hamburger-spd-fordert-erhalt-der-scientology-arbeitsgruppe--/de/News/21604653
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219142633/http://www.lfv.bayern.de/service/berichte/ to http://www.lfv.bayern.de/service/berichte/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110125055319/http://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/analysen/2007/Rechtliche_Fragen_zu_Religions-_und_Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften.pdf to http://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/analysen/2007/Rechtliche_Fragen_zu_Religions-_und_Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scientology-fakten.de/scientology-mitgliederzahl-in-deutschland-europa-usa-und-weltweit.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Number of Members
I have updated the government figure for the number of Scientology members in Germany. Unfortunately, I have not found a recent membership figure from the Organisation itself. If anyone does find a Scientologist website that says how many members they have in Germany, please do update the figure and source in the opening paragraph.TywysogMelyn (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Categories: