Talk:Scientology in Germany/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

American Spectator

For reference, here is the text of that American Spectator article, as given on alt.religion.scientology:

She Blinded Them With Science

The Whitehouse refused comment when asked why Secretary of State Madeleine Albright apologized to the German government for the State Department's latest human rights report that - in harsher language than any directed at China - accuses Germany of discriminating against the Church of Scientology. That part of the report was written by the White House, and now staffers on the Senate Finance IRS Oversight subcommitee want to know why. The slam at Germany isn't the first favor the Clinton administration has done for the Scientologists. In 1993, after 26 years of trying, the church was granted tax-exempt status as a religious organization in one of the first actions taken by the Clinton-era IRS. Clinton fundraisers have long understood the need to maintain friendly relations with the chuech: it boasts real star power in Clinton's beloved Hollywood, counting among its members the likes of John Travolta and Tom Cruise, and sympathizers such as Dustin Hoffman, Goldie Hawn, and Oliver Stone, who recently signed an open letter comparing the the plight of the German Scientologists to

that of the Jews in the 1930's.

Also cf. this New York Times article, discussing some of the same events. JN466 22:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

For background on the American Spectator in the mid-nineties, see Arkansas Project. Seems quite fringey. --JN466 22:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The American Spectator hated Clinton about as much as is humanly possible. I wish I'd saved the diffs, but none were to the article itself, just references to it, but some newspaper, "the Post", wrote an article about the Clinton meeting with Travolta which pretty much said Clinton's support was a quid pro quo for Travolta making the Clinton-based character he would play in the movie Primary Colors more sympathetic. I'd have to say that would be more believable, somehow. And, yes, Bill Clinton loved Hollywood and money, but the quotation above just seems to be drawing an inference rather than apparently having anything more solid to go on. If that's true, then it might just be speculation on the author's part, or at least possibly ascribing to one body, the Scientology lobby, actions which may not have been related to it. I'd probably want to see a more solid connection between the two to add any reference to it in this article, particularly considering how the American Spectator was at least one of, if not the, top advertisers for the Rush Limbaugh show during the Clinton era and more or less made its money saying all sorts of things against Clinton. (Hey, I used to listen to the show once in a while, particulary when Talk of the Nation sounded dull, kind of a change of pace. Doesn't mean I'm a fascist right-wing nutjob, OK?) John Carter (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We believe you. ;) The Primary Colors connection is mentioned here. There may have been other articles like that, of course. --JN466 23:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources related to Clinton and Scientology lobbying

Here are some more references related to Clinton and Scientology lobbying. Any of that editors would want to use here?

• Payton, Jack R. (1998-02-28). "German panel brings concerns on Scientology to Washington". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2009-09-27. (synopsis)
• Jacoby, Mary (1998-12-13). "High profile couple never pairs church and state". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2009-09-27. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Grove, Lloyd (2000-01-04). "Scientology's Funny Photos". The Reliable Source. Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-09-27. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Frantz, Douglas (1998-02-13). "Scientology's Star Roster Enhances Image". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-09-27.
• Dahl, David (1998-03-29). "Scientology's influence grows in Washington". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2009-09-27.

Regardless of what we use or don't use here, it is useful material for Scientology in the United States. --JN466 08:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

good work, not entirely Kent's imagination then? Also, as an aside, not that it proves anything, but I find it notable that the US Department of State was so vocal about the German affair, relative to how resolutely silent it remains on 'real' human rights abuses (with Honduras probably the most recent, though I think there was eventually an utterance after Brazil stepped into the fray). Sanitizer616 (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion?

There is an active request for a Third Opinion pointing to this talk page. I came here in hopes of helping out, but it is not clear what the dispute is. Can someone post a clarification of what needs a third opinion? It seems like you're working out the sourcing issues already... MirrorLockup (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is this active request? I certainly didn't file it; there aren't any real disputes, and none that require a third opinion per say. Not sure who put out a request and why. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

, . --JN466 12:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

that request was in response to this post. It wasn't followed, because it was most likely not perceived as a dispute over content, which was in all probability due to the fact the primary editor did not feel the issue warranted discussion, and therefore declined to engage. Since then there was an exchange on the issue, but the editor has still avoided detailing the relevant information despite the existence of multiple news items; they serve to underpin the points raised by Kent, the validity of which has been disputed by JN Sanitizer616 (talk) 10:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

@admins: this article does not seem to be neutral

I do not want to be the one who (again) sets off a neutrality dispute on this article without being able to contribute, but compared with History of the Jews in Germany and Antisemitism, this page makes the German government look like a totalitarian regime for _not_ accepting an organization as a religion which is disputed for their practices in other countries (France) and even feared (Switzerland). Most sources cited are German (!) and say far more than the part referenced for. This may be a common problem w/ the topic - the same problem (neutrality) exists in almost all S-related articles.

Sorces for my statments on France and Switzerland : Switzerland, sorry in German and France

Just my 2 cents.

Jck5000 (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily agree that the article paints Germany as an totalitarian regime, I would certainly say the text could do a better job explaining the reasons why the German government is opposed to Scientology. The huge majority of the text details the government's restrictions and surveillance activities, but really just a few sentences in the Background section are given to describe their rationale. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 23:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a couple of paragraphs in the Public Opposition section, on German fears of infiltration, a very common leitmotif in German press coverage.

The German rationale is difficult to summarise. Part of the reason is that it is governed by powerful emotions of fear and revulsion rather than a concise and logically consistent premise, a fact that has been commented upon in one of the UN documents (section 52) as well as by scholars: Germany's 5,000 Scientologists are variably being painted as brain-washed adherents of a strange religious sect, as minions of a super-efficient strictly non-religious business that has its tentacles everywhere (the "sinister octopus" image), then as incompetent, weak characters financially exploited by Scientology, then as members of a ruthless totalitarian political organisation that poses a credible threat of world domination. I am open to ideas on how to present more of this background. --JN466 23:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to give a more detailed description of concrete Scientology teachings and ideas the German government objects to (which is only briefly mentioned right now "...the elimination of "parasites" and "antisocial" people who stand in the way...") and then state how those ideas could be seen as a violation of the German constitution. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 00:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that was a good suggestion, and I have added material to the Background section, mostly based on the German government's background paper. Of course, some of these points come up again later in the article. --JN466 14:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

another factor that is largely ignored in the article, one that has been documented by number of sources, is the difference in perception of Scientology in Europe, relative to that in America (where it is of course considered a religion). The so called "Criticism of Germany's stance" has a strongly American bias (yet there is no explanation as to why this might be the case, despite there being one available).Sanitizer616 (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is merit to that observation. Did you see the paragraph I added yesterday about Scientology in France, Belgium, Greece and the UK in the Background section?

On the other hand, it is worth nothing that the European Court of Human Rights censured Russia for not registering Scientology as a religion, a decision that scholars have said will have a significant impact. --JN466 11:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The article was tagged a few days ago. No specific concerns or improvement proposals have been placed here on this talk page. The article passed a fairly thorough GA review in November 2009. Unless specific improvement proposals are brought forward here on this talk page over the coming days, I propose we remove the tag per Wikipedia:Tagging#Removing_tags. --JN466 12:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed per Wikipedia:Tagging#Removing_tags. --JN466 00:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)