Talk:Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia



Untitled
'''A request has been made of the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this page.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved. Preloaded case page

Why the difficulty?
There's nothing said here about why the Russians wouldn't register the church all those times... this article is currently rather lopsided. Esn 04:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the topic of this article in not "Why I think Scientology is bad" - there are hundreds of those - but a major court decision, without repeating the claims of both sides but only what the court has to say. You might consider putting one up called "Scientology in Russia" or so. Better, actually, would be an article on treatment of religious communities in Russia (this judgement will create a big dent in their current ways). Makoshack 04:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I second the comments made by neutral, previously un-involved editor User:Esn. The article needs to be expanded with information from reputable citations to include the reasoning behind why the Russian Government would not register the Church of Scienotlogy in the past, as well as other information on the topic related to "Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia"... Smee 09:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC). Let's not resort to sophistry here. This article "Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia" refers to a specific court case, not the 'controversy and history surrounding Scientology in Russia' as compiled by Rick Ross. Reasons for refusal that the Russian government didn't rely on to refuse registration do not belong in this article.
 * Unbalanced
 * Note: There is an index of reputable secondary sourced articles on the controversy and history surrounding it in Russia, here.  I will create the appropriate citations for these articles, and add them here on the talk page, so that they may then be utilized to expand the article itself, with proper citation formatting... Smee 09:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

As for what the Russian government's reasons for refusing registration actually were, these are set out in detail in the court judgment, as are the European Court's reasons for rejecting them. I suppose those reasons could be reproduced in the article, but I'm afraid Scientology opponents will be disappointed, because there is no 'dirt' there, only obvious bureaucratic obstructionism that presents the Russian government in a rather unfavourable light. -- Really Spooky 22:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

PS - There is really nothing to 'balance' (this article is about the Court's judgment, and to my mind is likely already too detailed). I can see why some might find the tone of the article marginally 'pro-Scientology', but that is a question of style, not factual balance (after all, the Church did win this one). I will put in a short summary of the reasons for refusal and remove the tag. -- Really Spooky 01:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hyperbole? This article may very well fail to present the outcome of this case in as objective a fashion as possible, largely through the following significant omissions and errors: 1. The ECHR did not allow the applicant's Article 14 claims; 2. The ECHR's basis for allowing the applicant's Article 11 claims is that the organisation in Russia had been recognised previously as a religious body under Russian law; this does not mean an automatic similar recognition of the group or any of its affiliates throughout Europe or indeed of any newly formed Scientology body in Russia. (For example, the UK Charity Commission's decision to refuse the group religious status in the UK likely would preclude a successful claim against the UK under Article 11.) 3. In a similar vein, the reference to the ECHR's binding jurisprudence on the European Community conflates the ECHR and the European Court of Justice. There is no doctrine of direct effect or primacy of ECHR case law (as there is with the ECJ) and to suggest that the present case will have significant legal consequences for the treatment of Scientology in Europe is sweeping and devoid of any legal basis.

82.35.57.27 14:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Legalbeagle


 * Anon (Legalbeagle?), your comments are incorrect.
 * Article 14. It is not true that the Court ‘did not allow’ the Church’s Article 14 claim (i.e. religious discrimination).  The Court simply considered that a separate examination from the standpoint of Article 14 was superfluous given its finding of a direct violation of the Church’s right to freedom of religion (see para. 101 of the judgment).
 * Significance of judgment. You say the judgment does not grant “automatic similar recognition” (as what? Each country regulates religious communities differently) to all Scientology associations throughout Europe.  If by that you mean recognition as a religious organisation on the national level, you are technically correct, but only because (a) not all states have a special legal form of company called a 'religious organisation'; and (b) the European Court does not act in the place of any government, it only determines whether a government, whether by act or omission, has committed a violation of human rights.  You are wrong, however, to conclude that this judgment has no significance for other Scientology churches in Russia and other European countries (e.g. your comment that “the UK Charity Commission’s decision to refuse the group religious status in the UK likely would preclude a successful claim against the UK under Article 11”).  Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights clearly states that “The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention and the protocols thereto which are referred to it…” Therefore the UK Charity Commission's refusal to recognise Scientology as a religious charity by no means precludes it from making a successful claim in the European Court.  Indeed, this judgment makes it much more likely that the UK government would lose such a case before it even reached the European Court, since under s.2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 the UK courts are required to take the European Court’s judgments into consideration when applying Convention rights.
 * ECHR v. ECJ. The article does confuse the European Community with the Council of Europe in one sentence, which has now been fixed.  However, you are also likely aware that ALL members of the European Community are also Member States of the Council of Europe, so this is little more than a technicality.  As for your comments that there is no doctrine of direct effect or primacy of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) case law as with the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the article makes no such assertion.  However, it clear from the European Convention that the ECHR’s judgments are binding on the parties to a dispute (Article 46), that it has the final say on matters concerning interpretation and application of the European Convention (Article 32) and that it follows its own case-law.  So yes, it is accurate to say that this judgment has legal significance for Scientology throughout Europe, since the Court has held that the right to freedom of religion applies to Scientology.
 * You do, however, make one valid point, albeit implicitly – the Russian government never disputed the fact that Scientology is a religion. So if a new case comes along where a government does in fact dispute the applicability of Article 9 to Scientology, that could make for some interesting fireworks.  My guess is that such a government would almost certainly lose on this point because the European Court is rather liberal on the concept of freedom of religion (it has held that it is applicable to Druids, ISKCON and other, more obscure groups as well).  If a government, for example, were to refuse recognition as a religion to a Scientology organisation due to illegal activities etc. it is more likely that the Court would say 'yes, Scientology is a religion, but refusal of registration was justified on public policy grounds'. -- Really Spooky 19:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreement in principle
 * Quite right. For the sake of brevity (and to merely flag the issues to allow the author(s) an opportunity to reflect on them without much legalese), I did not flesh out my points comprehensively. However, I maintain the validity of my original notes, in particular #2 and #3, to draw attention to the carte blanche application implied in the article.
 * Article 14: Yes, there was no need to decide further on that claim, since Article 11 (read with Article 9) was sufficient to address the claim in full.
 * Decision significance: I do not dispute that this is a significant shift, especially for government/national determinations of religiosity; I further agree that public policy grounds may, as under the UK HRA, continue to lawfully bar registration/recognition of certain bodies. My point was that the article did not suggest that the ECHR's recognition of the Church of Scientology of Moscow as a religious organisation was predicated on the specific fact that it previously had been registered as such in Russia, rather than it possessing certain religious characteristics. It is the absence of this key legal basis in other jurisdictions which might be sufficient to distinguish the case and prove a barrier to the success of discrimination claims elsewhere.
 * ECHR & ECJ: Whilst it is true that accession to the ECHR is a prerequisite for EU membership and that the UK HRA requires domestic jurisprudence consistent with that of the ECHR, this is not merely a technicality. It does not translate into the automatic municipal incorporation of ECHR case law (as was suggested before your thoughtful revision) and does not require consistent application by all national courts throughout the Council of Europe states in the same manner by which ECJ decisions and EC law are applied throughout the Community.
 * The reason I raised points #2 and #3 was to balance the article's implicit suggestion that the Church of Scientology now has a resultant carte blanche basis for registration or recognition throughout Europe. The article's substitution of "Church of Scientology" for "Church of Scientology of Moscow" -- the latter being the only religious organisation considered by the ECHR in the case -- contributes to this potential confusion and reinforces the incorrect conclusion that there has been any general, characteristic recognition of the broader organisation as a religion with attendant rights throughout Europe.
 * Hope that clarifies my too-brief points! Best, Legalbeagle

82.35.57.27 22:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your additional comments. I would also agree in principle with what you have just said.  It is true the article does not reflect all the nuances of the impact of ECHR judgments ‘on the ground’, which in any event varies from country to country depending on the degree of its incorporation of international law into its own legal system.  I probably would have written the article somewhat more conservatively myself, although on the whole I think it is a fair description of the impact of the judgment to Wikipedia’s wider (mostly non-lawyer) audience.  In any event, I think the “unbalanced” tag went too far.  Do feel free, however, to dive in and make changes to the article in line with your comments if you see fit (any user can edit it).
 * By the way, are you new to Wikipedia? I note that you sign with the moniker “Legalbeagle” but there is already a registered account with that name and I suspect it is not you.  If so, you might want to register your own account above (it’s free), which makes editing and interaction with other users much easier.  Good luck! -- Really Spooky 22:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies for using a moniker already taken! (Completely unintentional and will change.) I never used the word "unbalanced" and only suggested that it might be hyperbole for the article to go from the ECHR's finding that the Church of Scientology of Moscow is a recognised religious community in Russia and therefore has Article 11 rights in respect of non-discrimination of Russian re-registration" to the article's conclusion that the Church of Scientology generally is a religious community in Europe and therefore has the same rights in respect of registration in all Council of Europe states. And that this conclusion is given credence through (or is indeed predicated on) a bold interpretation of the ECHR's character and the operation of human rights law in Europe.
 * Best, (Ex-)Legalbeagle 82.35.57.27 09:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Linkable court docs
As I listed in my edit summary, it is possible to get a linkable URL to the court documents (the press release at any rate). Direct links to the court would be hugely preferable, but I'd suggest waiting a few days to see if that link remains stable before doing a mass-replace in the various articles where copies are used. AndroidCat 21:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good deed. The first links (PDFs, not here but in the Scientology article) were put up by myself because the ECHR links were not stable. COFS 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The link is still good, so I suggest hunting down and replacing the personal freebee pages that have been used in various articles. AndroidCat 12:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced and Unsourced
These are but a few of the reasons that the unbalanced and unsourced tags remain. Smee 00:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
 * 1) The article weighs heavily on the decision itself as a reference. This is a primary source.  The article should instead utilize reputable secondary sources.
 * 2) The hyperbole and language used is unbalanced, and biased. The article seems to be pushing some sort of agenda itself, as opposed to simply addressing the historical facts of the matter.
 * 3) The article should use citation formatting, otherwise at present, large whole paragraphs look like they are unsourced.
 * 4) This is part of a much larger issue and debate about the Church of Scientology's actions in Russia, and this should be addressed in the article as well. At present, it is not at all addressed.


 * Smee,
 * It may be true that the section in question lacks secondary sources, but as you are no doubt aware, your tag says something quite different. It says the section does not cite any references or sources, which is – how can I put this politely – false.  The section, which deals with the facts of the case, is linked by reference to the judgment.  Whilst this is a primary source, it is an obviously acceptable source (and indeed the best possible source) for factual material from the judgment itself.  I would agree that secondary sources are preferable in respect of interpretations of material, but that is not what your tag is saying, is it?
 * What hyperbole and language do you think are unbalanced and biased? You simply assert this without any specification, despite the fact that I invited you to do so once already.  If you were to address specific passages, you might even find that others agree with you (including myself) and the matter could be resolved fairly quickly.  Instead, you choose to indefinitely stigmatise the entire article with an ‘unbalanced’ tag rather than identifying specific concerns so they can be resolved.  Could this perhaps be because you yourself are pushing some sort of agenda?
 * You say ‘whole paragraphs look like they are unsourced’ because they lack "ref" formatting. As you well know, ‘looking like unsourced’ and ‘unsourced’ are quite different matters altogether.  You cannot have failed to noticed from the section title ‘Facts of the case’ that the section was derived from the court judgment and that the very first paragraph cited that judgment.  Repeating the reference for every paragraph seems a bit pedantic to me, but I have done it now, so the tag can be removed.
 * You believe this article should instead cover the ‘larger issue and debate about the Church of Scientology’s actions in Russia’ and apparently for that reason consider it 'unbalanced'. But this article is about a specific court judgment (I invite you to look at other Wikipedia articles on court judgments), and so any matters that were not considered in the Court's judgments or are unrelated to its effects have nothing to do with ‘balance’: they are, by definition, extraneous to the topic of the article.  It appears your idea of 'balance' is to redefine and expand the topic of the article to include negative information about Scientology so as to counter the positive implications of the judgment.
 * In sum, the ‘unsourced’ concerns, such as they were, have now been addressed and so I am removing that tag. As for the ‘unbalanced’ tag, you are invited once again to specify the specific passages that are the source of your concerns.  But if the tag remains yet another week with no more than vague complaints of ‘bias’, IMHO it should go.  The purpose of the tag is to resolve problems through constructive input, which is of course impossible if the 'tagger' refuses to identify the problem areas. -- Really Spooky 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Smee, thanks for modifying the tags to more accurately reflect your concerns. I have now had a closer look at the material in the light of WP:NOR.
 * 'Facts of the case' section. The judgment is actually a secondary source in respect of the information in this section (here primary sources would be, for example, copies of the refusals of registration or the parties' pleadings before the Russian courts).
 * 'Case summary' section. I would agree that the judgment is a primary source here, but the tag is inappropriate because no 'original research' issue arises.  The paragraph merely cites information from the judgment without attempting to interpret its significance, so its accuracy is easily verifiable by Wikipedia readers.  WP:NOR states:
 * Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.
 * For the above reasons I am removing the tags from the corresponding sections. -- Really Spooky 18:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

 * The unbalanced tag is being removed for now. The original concern raised by Esn has been addressed.  The second editor to raise a concern (82.35.57.27) stated that he never considered the article unbalanced.  The third editor (Smee) has not identified anything specific in the article that is unbalanced in over two weeks since the tag was originally placed.  In particular, no minority views about the court judgment lacking sufficient coverage in the article have been identified, which is what the unbalanced tag is all about.
 * An 'unbalanced' tag is a inappropriate way of expressing mere dissatisfaction with the general tone or topic of a article. Those matters can be dealt with constructively through the normal editing and discussion process. -- Really Spooky 13:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

nitpick?
last line of the intro par. seems a little... exalting...

Noncompliant tag
I have tagged this mess noncompliant as it is rife with amateur legal speculation, gross and repeated NPOV policy violations, and a wholly unbalanced view. (RookZERO 05:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I have removed some of the amateur legal speculation but the article still needs a great deal of work towards balancing, citations etc. As it stands, the article is still a mess.  (RookZERO 05:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC))


 * What qualifications do you bring to claim something a "amateur legal speculation", as opposed to a scholarly statement? COFS 22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The name says a lot. Misou 17:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your speculation is a gross violation of NPOV policy in that it is uncited, extremely pro-COS in its statements, and in places entirely inaccurate in its uncited assertions. It is at best in violation of NPOV and OR policy to continue to place it, if not outright vandalism.  (RookZERO 02:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Necessary changes have been made one by one with edit summaries expliaining the reasoning. While I don't expect engagement, it would be nice.  (RookZERO 03:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I won't tell you what I find necessary to do to your edits. But may I kindly ask you what Wikipedia Policy your edits are based on? And may I note that I have a burning desire to find out from you your answer to COFS question above and how nice of you it would be to answer this simple question? Misou 03:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless your speculation is cited to a legal expert, I have no alternative but to assume that its your own origional research or that of the editor who inserted it. You have repeated loaded up the article with creative and origional interpretations of the courts statements.  (RookZERO 04:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

Creative Interpretation
The article as it stands now allows the creative interpretation of the the court's ruling to stand as the facts. This is not only Origional Research, it is completely noncompliant with the NPOV policy, in that it consistantly takes the side of the cult. Many statements that were never made or even remotely implied by the court have been added as though the court's ruling established or reinforced them. (RookZERO 04:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Answer to both your comments. I did not write a word in this article. You deleted about half of it without talk and that's not ok. Don't know about any origional interpretations but you delete refs and quotes just the same. You are doing your own OR and POV-pushing if you claim something is "amateurish" or OR. I don't know and you have no clue either. Get an expert to look at it or give specifics. What phrase violates what Wikipolicy. And maybe you want to explain why you waited four months with your "concerns". Welcome to Wikiworld, this is how the game is played. Misou 04:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * RookZERO, instead of deleting entire paragraphs without any specific explanations or reasoning and making emotional accusations that the authors of the article are amateurs, perhaps you could lend your professed legal expertise and explain what parts of the article are NPOV and OR and why. That way editors can address your concerns through discussion on the talk page.  Otherwise removal of entire sections of the article simply because you think the 'article takes the side of the cult' raises more questions about your own ability to maintain NPOV than anything else.  After all, the European Court did 'take the side of the cult' in its judgment.
 * What are your specific constructive proposals for improving the article? -- Really Spooky 11:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that creative intrepretations of the court's ruling are being added as though they were explanations. The ruling should be able to speak for itself via quotes and really needs no amateur "clarification."  For instance, statements like "Implicit in this is the corollary conclusion that Scientology is a bona fide religion" which put words in the court's mouth and at points actually contradict the court's statements are a major problem, especially as this is both OR and inaccurate.  The sections which take the side of the cult are not the court's statements but rather statements like "the Court reaffirmed the issue that the Russian Federation has committed itself to uphold, namely the right to religious freedom for not only Scientologists but members of all religions throughout Europe" in the intro, something that the court never said.  Another problem is with the section for case law, where the amateur OR makes expansive claims on what effect this case will have, citing no source whatsoever and frankly contradicting the court's own ruling, which is much more narrowly construed.


 * Another especially problematic section claims that "The decision of the Court in Church of Scientology Moscow and its treatment of the Church of Scientology as a “religious community” entitled to the full panoply of fundamental human rights that attach to such communities therefore has direct application and establishes important and binding legal precedents throughout Europe and Eurasia." Again, the court made no such sweeping statement as the OR implies.  The ruling was narrowly directed to reregistration in Moscow along with a reiteration that national governments need to be wary of violating religious freedom.  Claims such as these should be deleted unless a neutral expert citation can be found.  The Origional researcher apparently chose to interpret the court's explanation of its reasoning as some sort of stamp of legitimacy on the cult and an implication that other nation's laws were in violation of the court's rulings, neither of which the court stated or implied.(RookZERO 23:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

another wrong interpretation " ... Human Rights Court determined that the Church of Scientology of Moscow was a “religious community” ..." reliable interpretation: "... Furthermore, the ECHR itself did not consider whether the Scientology organisation as such meets the characteristics of a religion ..." echr:"... The centre’s application for re-registration was rejected in 1999 on the basis that it was religious in nature. ..." so Russia determined if Scientology is a religion, not echr

and why is the only conclusion which is not created by editors explained in the chapter "Reactions to the Court's judgment" I would expect in this place the reaction from Russia and not an interpretation.

in the article: " ... The Scientology Working Group of the City of Hamburg posted comments on the city's website, in English, containing its assessment of the judgment and its implications. The statement does not provide any information on the identity or qualifications of its authors. ..." its represented by the mayor of city Hamburg. Governmant agencies usually don't publish the author for any report but ensure the crediblity of information. The sentence should be deleted or if the city of Hamburg authorities are seen as unreliable the report should be deleted entirely. In my opinion the article should be based on such reliable information instead WP:OR.

47 member nations, not 46 -- Stan talk 01:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why publications from government organizations usually don't have authors included
The work group itself is an authority regardless of people wich worked on the publication. The Work Group clearly states in the head "Department for Domestic Affairs"(Germany) - "Working Group Scientology" wich is an authority and very often cited in this field. Its published on the "city of Hamburg" Website and is obviously not a fake. Governments, even in the US usually don't name the author/s of publications. The article states already that it is only an opinion by the Working Group and I didn't delete that even this source is better and more reliable than the rest of the article wich is mainly WP:OR from editors. It is completely odd to question qualification of unknown authors if it was published by a government organization and I never saw that in WP before. It looks to me that some editors try to discredit the statement with this comment additionally because they disagree with it. The disputed sentence in the article: "The Working Group's statement does not provide any information on the identity or qualifications of the people who prepared it." -- Stan talk 16:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Government reports are frequently listed as authored by the group in general rather than the specific person or persons who wrote the report or endorsed its findings. This does not even necessarily mean that the government agency is trying to conceal the identity of the authors, although given the past history of Scientology with government, I wouldn't blame them if they did.(RookZERO 20:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

Original Research Pushing
Editors with a rather tendentious POV keep adding the sentence "The Working Group's statement does not provide any information on the identity or qualifications of the people who prepared it." That is a blatant violation of WP:OR. That statement has not been cited. Either cite it or knock off the edit warring.--Fahrenheit451 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The source is of course the statement itself, which is self-evident from the sentence you deleted. That source is already cited and the paragraph does not need a new citation to the same source at the end of every sentence.
 * There is nothing tendentious about the sentence either. All it does is state a simple, true and undisputed fact and makes no attempt to interpret that fact.  Therefore the 'edit warring' here is on the part of editors who wish to censor true and factual information from the article because they fear it discredits the report, which they assert is 'authoratative'.
 * BTW, the failure to identify the authors does not 'discredit' the report, what 'discredits' it is the opinion it contains, which demonstrates a fundamental ignorance about the nature of European human rights law. However, I would not make an edit to that effect because that would violate WP:OR.  The appropriate thing to do in this situation is to simply point to the undisputed fact that there is no information about the authors' expertise.  If the authors were identified, the appropriate thing to do would be to highlight those authors' expertise or lack thereof. -- Really Spooky 08:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Really Spooky, Fine. By your reply, "The source is of course the statement itself, which is self-evident from the sentence you deleted." You have admitted that the statement is Original Research. I remind you to discuss edits here and refrain from discussing your views on the motives of editors who do not share your point of view. Unless you can find a citation for that statement, it is being removed as a violation of WP:OR. If you choose to begin an edit war, then I will escalate this to a corrective measure.--Fahrenheit451 20:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fahrenheit451, I have admitted no such thing. My reference to the 'statement itself' is of course to the Working Group's statement, and the citation/link  to the PDF document was right there at the end of the sentence you deleted, as you or any other user of this page can easily verify by looking at that version using the history tab.  I will assume good faith for the moment and suppose you were sincerely confused as to what I was talking about instead of engaging in deliberate obfuscation.  I will take it as a sign of that good faith if you revert yourself in recognition of that mistake, because I can't do it myself without going to 3RR against your tandem revert team with Stan. -- Really Spooky 20:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Really Spooky, clearly you have violated WP:AGF as you refer to Stan and I as "your tandem revert team". I reverted you once, for the record, so obviously, I am not part of any alleged revert team as you state. I was never "confused" as you allege, nor was I engaging in "deliberate obfuscation" as you also allege. I remind you to pay heed to WP:CIVIL. I will look at that citation again, however, due to the edit warring I have observed in this article, I have requested a mediation.--Fahrenheit451 23:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Really Spooky, all right. I read through the commentary on the ruling of the ECHR that is cited and nowhere does it state anything about member qualifications, which is the norm with courts and government committees. E.g. When a judge or jury renders a judgment, the qualifications of the judge or each juror are never discussed. The sentence in controversy is merely a wikipedia editor's comment. In the context of a judicial ruling, such a comment about judicial qualifications is absurd. If you feel that strongly about that sentence, then it can be discussed in mediation.--Fahrenheit451 23:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? Your are confusing two different things.  The people whose identity and qualifications are in issue here are the members of the working group, not the members of the European Court.  As for your comment about court judgments, it is most certainly NOT the norm for judges to remain anonymous, and their legal qualification is that of a judge.  Indeed the very first thing in a European Court judgment is a list of the judges.  Anyone who wants more detail on their qualifications can look here. As for jurors, they are not expected to have any legal qualifications, because they do not decide questions of law, only questions of fact.
 * The reason why the lack of information about the identity and qualifications of the authors of the Working Group statement is relevant is that the statement purports to give an authoritative interpretation of the ECHR judgment, and it in fact does so in rather categorical terms. -- Really Spooky 01:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Really Spooky, in the United States, jurors may decide both questions of law and fact. See Jury nullification. I think you are confusing a juror with a judge. --Fahrenheit451 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. I guess I should first note your telling silence on the matters of substance I pointed out above; you are really getting off topic here (the European Court does not use jurors). The only reason I responded at all is because you seem to suggest a juror's qualificaions are somehow significant (they aren't, the whole idea of a jury is to have laymen that are NOT qualified lawyers, in some jurisdictions lawyers aren't even allowed to be on a jury).
 * For the record, juries do not decide matters of law. Jury nullification is a situation where a jury gives a verdict that is contrary to the law. In those jurisdictions where this can happen, it happens only very rarely, and is effectively a rebellion against a law the people consider unjust or an expression of bias, not an application or interpretation of the law. -- Really Spooky 09:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Really Spooky, it seems that you are violating WP:CIVIL with me here. You are ignoring basic Wikipedia policy. There is no "telling silence" and I was very clearly using jurors as an example.  You should find out what "e.g." means in a good dictionary.  I never stated that judges were anonymous, you did. You stated, "As for jurors, they are not expected to have any legal qualifications, because they do not decide questions of law, only questions of fact."  In jury nullification, the jurors are, to a limited extent deciding a question of law, in this case, if the law is applicable or even a just law.  Jurors have the right to decide those questions for themselves.  They are not proxies of a judge.  Getting back to the topic, the debate here is over the inclusion or exclusion of one sentence that is nothing more than an editor's comment.--Fahrenheit451 15:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Fahrenheit451, but it was quite clear to me that you were using jurors as an example. Perhaps I should explain to you, then, that the purpose of my reply was to show why that example is flawed.
 * By the way, could you condescend to recommend to me a good dictionary? I really really want to be able to decipher those arcane abbreviations you use. -- Really Spooky 23:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Really Spooky, I got what you stated, but my example is sound. Sorry if you don't understand it. I do not "condescend" so you will have to receive that treatment from a person or organization that deals in that. When I was doing the Student Hat, "e.g." was not considered an "arcane abbreviation", but I understand that things have radically changed in the cofs. Too bad.--Fahrenheit451 23:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please put any further discussions on the mediation page.--Fahrenheit451 01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it is tendentious editing if you insert such a statement exceptionally here and discredit this source additionally. I don't know of one other WP article where such a statement is included when a GO is cited and GO's usally don't cite their authors. I don't know if you are a specialized lawyer on "European human right laws" but even if you would be, it would still be your own original research that in your opinion the German Government is not able to publish a competent explanation unless you publish your opinion and it becomes RS. No one deleted the statement that it is only one opinion from the work group and there is no reason that you express your opinion about this group additionally in the article. --11:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan En (talk • contribs)


 * The statement does not say 'the German Government is not able to publish a competent explanation', nor did I 'express my opinion about the group' in the article, as you are perfectly well aware. The sentence you are so anxious to remove merely states a true and accurate fact that you do not dispute.  Why are you insistent on hiding that fact?  Could it be because you yourself fear that the lack of any information about the identify or qualifications of the authors discredits the report? -- Really Spooky 14:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It would also be a "perfectly right statement" if we mention on every sourced statement "It could be wrong, be cautious". But its POV. Especally because it isn't done on other GO citations. ...and no, I am not afraid about the lack of the information about the individual who wrote it because 1) I know that a lawyer works in the group(read it in newspaper wich mentioned 5 employees including one lawyer) 2)I doubt that a GO would publish such information without qualified authors. 3)state.gov, why don't they publish their authors ? Should we mention that in every article when cited or only if the "biased" German government is used as source?  -- Stan talk 15:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that writing “It could be wrong, be cautious” after a statement would be POV, because that is opinion, not an undisputed fact. But that’s not what the sentence says, is it?
 * It may or may not be true that a lawyer works in the Working Group (I’ll have to take your word for it), but since no lawyer is identified as an author of the statement we have no idea whether s/he has any expertise in European human rights law or even contributed to the statement. Hell, for all we know s/he might completely disagree with the statement.
 * As for your doubts over whether a government organisation would publish information without qualified authors (assuming for the moment that an ad hoc group of people working under the auspices of a city administration is truly a ‘government organisation’), I can only marvel at your unquestioning faith in government authority. Do you think, for example, that the same benefit of the doubt should be given to the German government of, say, 1933, or any of a number of current governments around the world today?  Governments are frightfully wrong frightfully often, and often deceitfully and deliberately so.  This latter concept is often called propaganda, and if you find it doubtful that a government would ever engage in such nasty business you might like to read this.
 * As for your assertion that the US State Department and other government organisations ‘don’t publish their authors’, that is simply wrong. The 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group Report come immediately to mind.  I also looked at the State Department you keep directing me to and found that their reports in fact do often list the authors.  See, for example, here here and here. -- 20:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Really Spooky, your argument is moot. The citation refers to a judicial group. If you feel that the article needs to have the ECHR membership included, you are free to research who those members are.--Fahrenheit451 23:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel I should respond, but your comment makes no sense at all to me. Can you please explain more clearly what you are talking about? -- Really Spooky 00:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PS see also my response at 01:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC) above. -- Really Spooky 01:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment (mostly copied from MedCab) Yes, but why is a biased local group a "reliable source". I may as well say that a CofS press release about what the ruling means is a reliable source. Neither are reliable sources but at least the Church's claims are relevant to the article because the ruling was about the Church. So what the Church claims belongs in the article. The Hamburg opinion is just that, an opinion by an uninvolved and biased group that has no bearing on anything. I am not sure it is notable or belongs in the article. It is not relevant in a notable sense. So rather that cast WP:OR aspersions on the comment, I say we just cast it out of the article. --Justanother 13:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Justanother, one could also consider the cofs to be a biased group. The cofs opinion is what it is. Your disagreement with the Hamburg study group's issue does not exclude it from inclusion in the article. I don't know of any Wiki policy that the cofs rebuttal could not be included as well.--Fahrenheit451 01:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * local biased group ? Its a Government organization from a German state. It was not a private personal statement from Ursula and probably neither written by her and is authorized as an official publication by the Department for Domestic Affairs of Hamburg. What do want ? The UN ? Why an assesment of the case is important was already discussed on mediation. The source may be disputed due to other reliable sources(wich I didn't see now) but the notibility of an assesment or explanation for consequences of this judgement is clear.-- Stan talk 21:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the AGS is a fanatic with her lackeys paid by the City of Hamburg. That is a difference. Shutterbug 04:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hamburg is a state in federal Germany as well as being a city. If it is paying "lackeys," then we should probably qualify all government officials as lackeys.  The Arbeitsgruppe Scientology, or AGS, is not a fanatic, it is a government task force, and one small part of the largest democracy in Europe -- better credentials than many of the sources you cite, Shutterbug/COFS. Like.liberation 11:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Like.liberation (talk • contribs)
 * Shutterbug's name isn't Shutterbug/COFS, so call her by her proper username, please (Meanwhile, please also learn how to properly sign your own name by using four tildes). And I'm not impressed by the argument that "if an agency in some country's government says it, it must be true". A lot of governments in a lot of countries say a lot of really stupid and evil things, and Germany's no exception - especially not Germany. wikipediatrix 20:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural reasons for not naming the authors
There is quite a specific tradition in member cities of the Hanse. In a spirit of equality, senators and other elected and unelected members of the city administration refuse to accept decorations. For example former german chancellor Helmut Schmidt repeatedly refused to accept the Bundesverdienstkreuz arguing that he was a former senator of the city of Hamburg. Details (in german) here:. So an additional reason that the authors of this paper are not named might just be that traditional modesty of hanseatic public servants. I hope that this probably not very widely known detail will be helpful, even though the debate seems finally to be settled. --Ministry of Truth 23:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Not signing a legal paper is more a sign of irresponsibility, anonymously hiding behind a title or office like civil servants tend to do, and has nothing of a "traditional modesty of hanseatic public servants". Makoshack 00:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speculation about why the authors didn't identify themselves misses the point, whatever the reason for their actions the fact remains that we know absolutely nothing about their qualifications or experience in European human rights law, which is relevant because they make dogmatic (and wrong) assertions about the legal meaning of the judgment. -- Really Spooky 02:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I recently pointed out to Makoshack that his comment was simply his opinion and he accused me of a personal attack right here:--Fahrenheit451 04:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to be helpful by adding some very specific cultural information, which might, for the select few interested in an intellectually honest debate, be useful. I certainly don't want a piece of the general name-calling and unsourced conspiracy-theories which create an extremely frustrating working environnement over here. Asymmetrical information warfare by vocal fringe groups is one of the most unpleasant aspects of Wikipedias openness still not dealt with in an efficient way. --Ministry of Truth 11:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You speak the truth.--Fahrenheit451 18:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Two book burners meet, isn't that sweet. MoT, I know what you're talking about when you say "modesty of hanseatic public servants". Been there. But you missed the boat on these specific Hamburg public servants. No modesty, no honesty, just pure propaganda fighting. So generally: thanks, specifically: get briefed. Misou 17:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Your ref says that hanseatic public servants are prohibited to accept awards etc, no word about why they won't sign their papers. Misou 17:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, their motives for not identifying themselves is irrelevant - the edit never said that their motives were bad. It merely highlighted the fact that the information on their identity or qualifications is missing, without which the opinion is of little or no value. -- Really Spooky 18:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia. 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/20130509214458/http://www.echr.coe.int:80/echr/ to http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)