Talk:Scientology in Germany/Archive 3

Only solution for NPOV: Block User:Jayen466
The whole article is racism. There is nearly nothing giving a neutral point of view. And User:Jayen466 is by far the main reason.

Regarding his racist sources or citations: Scientology-believers or -fans can source everything. And Wikipedia has helped them to find "believable" sources. Believable?

Other problem is that US and British citizens and even newspapers easily believe and publish any mendacious Germany-Harassment. Wispanow (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. -- JN 466  16:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thread moved to WP:AE. -- JN 466  19:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your unsourced talk of racism in this edit summary and elsewhere is surprising and upsetting. You should be aware that the article Scientology in Germany is subject to an Arbcom case which your recent edits seem to violate. If you join the discussion at WP:AE and promise to behave better in the future there may still be time for you to avoid sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is upsetting, but appropriate. This takes time to prove. In the meantime i am sorry for any use of upsetting words. Wispanow (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh so it's okay for britons and US americans to publish anti-german articles and acccuse germans of being racist but if germans, in return, claim to be treated unfair they are biased, judgemental and violate rules? Thank you very much for your obvious neutrality and unbiasedness english wikipedia! --89.50.29.248 (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany
I note that you are frustrated about the development of the Scientology in Germany article, and feel that it has POV issues because it takes the view that Germany is hostile to Scientology, and does not have a balancing view that Germany has been tolerant of the organisation. I don't know much about the topic, but I have been doing some research, and from what I have found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc, it appears to me that the Scientology in Germany article has the appropriate approach. In my research I didn't find views that Germany has been tolerant. Do you have evidence of tolerance that I could look at? Or sources that challenge the accepted view that Germany is intolerant of the organisation?

I am neutral on this topic, and I accept that my research was quick and dirty, so am willing to look into whatever evidence you have; though at this point, given what I have found, and given the care that Jayen466 has taken to build the article in a neutral and well researched manner, consulting with others all along the way, I am inclined to the view that the article is fair and neutral.

I am ready and willing to talk through these issues with you at any time.

In the meantime, given some of the comments and accusations you have made, it might be appropriate to offer Jayen466 an apology. In the heat of the moment we are all capable of saying inappropriate things. An apology when calmer goes a long way to mending broken bridges and creating a more positive image of your character.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. My main things ESPECIALLY RELATING TO SCIENTOLOGY are to state reality in an appropriate manner. Both has to be proven later. Wispanow (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Wispanow, Essay of Arguments related to human rights, racism, law and objectivity
Discussion arguments, partly copied statement by Wispanow made on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#User:Wispanow. Partly changed. Shorted. To be expanded.

Current state:
 * Highly incomplete
 * lacking sources

Expected time to completion: Minimum 21.03.

Introduction
'''1. Stating reality in an appropriate manner is the main thing ANY encyclopedia and the discussion about it is for. Leaves to prove what is reality and appropriate.'''

2. This is the optimum place to discuss if the article represents reality or a wrong or even racist viewpoint. And the adequacy depends on that, probably insulting a whole nation with over 80 million people.

In the meantime i am sorry for any use of upsetting but appropriate words.

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

At a first look the German constitution does not offer very uncommon things while stating the "basics" of the basic law in the first 12 articles; the world-wide unique thing in its combination of features is the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany), which guarantees and protects human rights for everybody who thinks his rights were violated related to Germany or Germans. It can partly be seen as a "Super" Supreme Court:


 * Accessible as an inviolable right by everybody worldwide, independent of religion, decent, nationality or race. Other states limit access to protection of human rights dependent of religion, decent, nationality or race (short "race" as defined by United Nations), making them violable for most humans of the world, or "racist".
 * Can be called directly, without need for calling lower courts first, but can be (and is mostly) used as the highest appeal in Germany, even higher than the Federal courts.
 * Easiest accessible: No money needed for everybody, no lawyer or special lawyer needed: A formless, hand-written paper in any language of the world is sufficient.
 * Highly independent: For example it often changes, blocks or even fully deletes laws of the German government several times a year due to violation of the constitution. That does not make German politicians look good. German politicians are often, and especially in areas related to the protection of basic human rights, extremely limited by the courts, making them nearly powerless. In opposite, the Bundesverfassungsgericht seems currently change even European law (although it is not directly entitled to) in case of privacy protection.
 * Its power is tremendous although it has never been tested because never ignored. In comparison the US Supreme Court has a lot less power: Although the Supreme Court judged in 2004 that Guantanamo prisoners should have full access to the courts (not as a inviolable right for everyone, but gracefully granted to a few guys), its judgment, even with a follow-up in 2008, is minimum partly ignored.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judiciary of Germany
Nearly any correction of a judgment is done by appeals, not by revision or super-revision.

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

Incomplete.

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

 * 1) Consider that sources may not reflect reality.
 * 2) Consider that anything i remember in this article about the recognition of Scientology and nearly anything about the violation of human rights in Germany is wrong. Scientology Gerichtsurteile Translation: Scientology Judgments: Recognition of 30 years Basic Law Article 4 Religious Freedom Church of Scientology in Germany 1978 to 2008

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

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

Listed sources are insufficient; search for more.

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

 * The UN does not define "racism", however it does define "racial discrimination": according to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
 * the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.


 * This definition does not make any difference between prosecutions based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the two remains debatable among anthropologists.
 * According to British law, racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin".

Leaves to define discrimination:
 * The United Nations uses the definition of racial discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted in 1966:
 * ...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.(Part 1 of Article 1 of the U.N. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination)

I prefer to add two more points:
 * 1) Because we are not perfect and it may offend somebody, use of the term "racism" needs a considerably amount of discrimination
 * 2) Statements have to differ from reality or include meanings that differ from reality.

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

Conclusions
To be proven.

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

Protection under Article 4 of the German Constitution
Following on from the discussions at WP:AE, has several times in the past argued that Scientology enjoys the full protection of Article 4 (Freedom of Religion) of the Basic Law in Germany. He has edit-warred to add unsourced statements to that effect to Wikipedia. 

The following is from a German Parliament debate:


 * Antwort des Staatssekretärs Dr. Willi Hausmann vom 12. Dezember 1995
 * Bundesministerin Claudia Nolte vertritt wie die Bundesregierung seit langem die Auffassung, daß die Scientology-Organisation weder eine Religionsgemeinschaft noch eine Weltanschauungsgemeinschaft ist. Ihre Ziele sind eindeutig auf wirtschaftliche Aktivitäten ausgerichtet, und ihre Behauptung, eine Religions- oder Weltanschauungsgemeinschaft zu sein, stellt nur einen Vorwand dar. Deshalb kann sich die Scientology-Organisation nach Auffassung der Bundesregierung auch nicht auf die durch Artikel 4 des Grundgesetzes geschützte Religionsfreiheit berufen. Die Bundesregierung sieht sich in dieser Auffassung durch die Entscheidung des Bundesarbeitsgerichts vom 22. März 1995 bestätigt. Auf die Bedeutung des Urteils hat Bundesministerin Claudia Nolte in dem Gespräch in der Zeitung "Die Welt" ausdrücklich hingewiesen. Sie hat außerdem ihre Sorge darüber geäußert, wie die Scientology-Organisation "unter dem Deckmantel der Religion" agiert.

For those editors who don't speak German, here is a rough google translation: |en|Antwort%20des%20Staatssekret%C3%A4rs%20Dr.%20Willi%20Hausmann%20vom%2012.%20Dezember%201995%0ABundesministerin%20Claudia%20Nolte%20vertritt%20wie%20die%20Bundesregierung%20seit%20langem%20die%20Auffassung%2C%20da%C3%9F%20die%20Scientology-Organisation%20weder%20eine%20Religionsgemeinschaft%20noch%20eine%20Weltanschauungsgemeinschaft%20ist.%20Ihre%20Ziele%20sind%20eindeutig%20auf%20wirtschaftliche%20Aktivit%C3%A4ten%20ausgerichtet%2C%20und%20ihre%20Behauptung%2C%20eine%20Religions-%20oder%20%20Weltanschauungsgemeinschaft%20zu%20sein%2C%20stellt%20nur%20einen%20Vorwand%20dar.%20Deshalb%20kann%20sich%20die%20Scientology-Organisation%20nach%20Auffassung%20der%20Bundesregierung%20auch%20nicht%20auf%20die%20durch%20Artikel%204%20des%20Grundgesetzes%20gesch%C3%BCtzte%20Religionsfreiheit%20berufen.%20Die%20Bundesregierung%20sieht%20sich%20in%20dieser%20Auffassung%20durch%20die%20Entscheidung%20des%20Bundesarbeitsgerichts%20vom%2022.%20M%C3%A4rz%201995%20best%C3%A4tigt.%20Auf%20die%20Bedeutung%20des%20Urteils%20hat%20Bundesministerin%20Claudia%20Nolte%20in%20dem%20Gespr%C3%A4ch%20in%20der%20Zeitung%20%22Die%20Welt%22%20ausdr%C3%BCcklich%20hingewiesen.%20Sie%20hat%20au%C3%9Ferdem%20ihre%20Sorge%20dar%C3%BCber%20ge%C3%A4u%C3%9Fert%2C%20wie%20die%20Scientology-Organisation%20%22unter%20dem%20Deckmantel%20der%20Religion%22%20agiert. A more legible translation would be this:


 * Response by the State Secretary, Dr. Willi Hausmann, 12 December 1995
 * Like the Federal Government, Federal Minister Claudia Nolte has long taken the view that the Scientology organization is neither a religious community nor a worldview community. Its objectives are clearly focused on economic activities, and its claim to be a religious or worldview community is only a pretext. Therefore, in the opinion of the Federal Government, the Scientology organization cannot call upon protection under the religious freedom clause in Article 4 of the Basic Law. The Federal Government has seen its opinion confirmed by the decision of the Federal Labor Court of 22 March 1995. Federal Minister Claudia Nolte clearly referred to the importance of this decision in her interview in the newspaper Die Welt. She has also expressed her concern about how the Scientology organization operates "under the guise of a religion".

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

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

I am not aware of any German or foreign reliable sources that state anything else about the German government's position. For example, the BBC states, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6255733.stm Scientology is not recognised as a religion by the German government. It is considered a commercial enterprise, despite repeated protests by Scientologists.] More BBC hits: Similarly, Time Magazine states, The German government also guarantees freedom of religion but refuses to register Scientology as a religion, considering it a profit-making enterprise that that is bilking its members of their savings. Wispanow has stated at WP:AE, "I accuse mainly time.com and partly bbc.co.uk (and others) for stating an unbalanced, wrong and/or even racist viewpoint of Germany and german people. Therefore it will not help adding additional sources just mentioning the same viewpoint, but check if its real or wrong or racist."

I believe the German parliament sources linked to above demonstrate that Time magazine and the BBC do not misrepresent the German government's position. Can we agree that we can put this particular issue to bed then, or do editors see a need for further discussion? -- JN 466  10:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First: stop attacking me. For every repeated revert minimum two persons are needed. And i am, despite your efforts, until now not the one who is topic-blocked partly because of edit-wars. Please focus on the article, not on the editors. STOP. OKAY? Last warning. Wispanow (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wispanow, please point out where you were attacked, in Jayen466's comment. I believe that his comment about your edit-warring is technically correct. Check WP:EW if you are unsure. I believe that his comment that you made unsourced changes is also technically correct. Please provide your own links to sources if you believe that Jayen's links at the top of his message do not fully make his case. It is OK to give links to sources in German if you have them. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wispanow, you inserted the unsourced material four times. You were reverted twice by me, and once by John Carter, and then after your last revert, the article was locked for two weeks, during which it contained information not in line with the cited source. -- JN 466  23:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wispanow refers above to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG), which really is the final arbiter at the national level. The BVerfG has so far not made a ruling on Scientology's status. Neither side seems to have been prepared to force the issue by asking for such a ruling (most likely because they each had too much to lose in case the decision were to go against them). Scientology did however win an important case against Russia in 2007 at the European Court of Human Rights, which censured Russia for failing to register Scientology as a religion. According to James T. Richardson, this decision may prove influential in other European countries. The way I read Richardson, Scientology can now be fairly confident that the BVerfG would be overruled by the ECHR if they were to pronounce against Scientology's entitlement to religious status. But I am not aware of anything happening on that front, and even if there were, the BVerfG has been known to take up to 10 years to come to a decision. -- JN 466  01:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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

On the other hand, where an official gives the official position of the German government, as in the example in the preceding section, this is not just an exercise of free speech. If the German government does not recognise Scientology as a religion, this has very real consequences -- it has affected taxation, government surveillance, association law, employment issues, even banking. -- JN 466  23:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hysteria"
Re the contested sentence "German fears and concerns about new religious movements reached a level resembling hysteria in the mid-nineties, becoming focused mainly on the Church of Scientology." I agonised over this one a long time; if you look through the edit history, I had several times changed to and fro from "reached unprecedented heights" to "reached levels resembling hysteria". There is a remarkably broad spectrum of sources using the term "hysteria" about what happened in the mid- to late 90s in Germany – it includes scholars like Willms ("Zwischen dem Erscheinen der Scientology-Organisation in Deutschland zu Beginn der 1970er Jahre und der Mitte der 1990er Jahre beobachteten Hysterie um diese Erscheinung ...") and Seiwert, Lutheran church spokesmen like Fincke and Nüchtern (cited in Seiwert), as well as German and international mainstream media. I propose we could say "widely described as resembling hysteria", if editors are uncomfortable stating it in the article's editorial voice. -- JN 466  23:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think our guideline WP:LABEL applies here. We should not apply labels in Wikipedia's voice. The phrase "reached levels resembling hysteria" strikes me as too vague anyway. The phrase "reached unprecedented heights" is dubious as well. See WP:PEACOCK.  Also, we should avoid statements in our voice that characterize the German people as a whole. For example  "As noted by the religious scholar Hubert Seiwert, Germans came to see ..."   would be better phrased "The religious scholar Hubert Seiwert suggests that Germans came to see ..." Most of the article discusses the German government, courts,  parliament, etc. That's much more appropriate than talking about "the Germans." Here is one possibility for the initial disputed sentence "Fears and concerns about new religious movements reached a high level in the mid-nineties, becoming focused mainly on the Church of Scientology. Many commentators later used the word 'hysteria' to describe the public reaction [citations]."--agr (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that wording. -- JN 466  11:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Re section "Sources with unbalanced, biased or wrong statements or viewpoints or wrongly cited"
I don't understand the point of this section. What part of the article, specifically, does it relate to? The Scientology blog and Scientology press release that Wispanow links to are not reliable sources, for reasons explained earlier at WP:AE. I believe the points cited in the background paper are broadly represented in the article. If you feel something essential is missing, please advise. -- JN 466  23:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The section "Germany has a different, "non-racist" state structure: a summary" I don't understand at all. The article does not claim anywhere that Germans are racist. -- JN 466  23:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The section "My definition of racism against Germany and German people is based on United Nations" has me equally baffled. -- JN 466  23:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My surmise is that he is reacting to language that appears to characterize the German people as a whole in a negative way, as I discussed above. --agr (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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