Talk:Scientology in Germany/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

Apologies for the long wait, I hope a fruitful review can now take place!

Note: I am an incredibly picky editor, and in many respects the GA review will probably go beyond the norm. However, it will obviously be of considerable benefit to the article, so I hope you have no concerns with me doing this. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

Pick away; as you say, close attention is usually beneficial. JN466 12:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

07 November 2009: Apologies for drifting off in regards to reviewing. I can find nothing of particular fault with the article, and nothing that bothers me and would prevent the article passing GA. Please carry out or respond to any open points (I think there are a couple) for the good of the article! I'm encouraged to say this, however I do personally think it is important: please, if you are able, help the GA process and carry out the review of another article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Final assessment: Pass

Lead

• The lead does not adequately sum up the rest of the article, which is its purpose. It summarises primarily the legal opposition and stance of the German government, when what is should do is try to incorporate information under all headers.
• "notably by the United States government,", perhaps we could be given the briefest of context as to why the US government in particular has criticised the German stance (i.e. because the US is the country with the largest proportion of Scientologists). Not sure though how you could phrase it exactly.
  • I've had a go: [1] --JN466 12:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Fine, I can't see any casual improvement at the moment. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• I've extended the lead to give a brief summary of each section. JN466 20:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure the lead provides a balanced summary of the entire article right now. It reads primary as a protaganist/antagonist analysis, could potentially mislead the casual viewer into reaching an innacurate conclusion. Sanitizer616 (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• I think the isolated sentence at the end of the lead could be expanded upon. This section (Criticism of Germany's stance) is particularly interesting, but unfairly covered. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Scientology Controversy

• Would this not be better titled "Background", since it seems more of a background to Scientology rather than focusing particularly on the controversy that surrounds it.

- done --JN466 22:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• • The background contained very little context on the specific nature of the Scientology/Germany issue so I moved appropriate text from the Public opposition section. Sanitizer616 (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientology presence in Germany

• Similarly as above, would this section not best be titled "History"?
• "first established a base", what is "a base"? "Presence" might be preferable. *"Scientology Missions" needs a wikilink or adequate explanation, I am left with no idea of what these are and how significant they are.
  • The difference between a Scientology Church and a Scientology Mission is that a Church offers a more complete range of religious services than a Mission. On a more practical level, the Churches tend to be large and quite visible buildings in major cities (see pictures in the article), whereas a Mission might initially just be a Scientologist's home. --JN466 11:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• "major Scientology bases" same as first point, "Cities in which Scientology has a major presence"?
• "adherents", seems a very non-religious way of phrasing a "follower", which is used in the following sentence anyway.
• "Cities with major Scientology bases include" is this talking about in 2007 (as in, part of the previous sentence) or 2009. If it's the former then perhaps consider:
  • "By 2007, its German presence comprised ten Scientology Churches located in major cities, including: [the examples listed]
• "stable at that level" has been edited to remove "at that level", since both terms aren't necessary. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• "Germany's domestic intelligence service, the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, or BfV)", I'm not certain, but I'm sure the vernacular name should come before the translated name.

Goodness! After all this time! Right, thanks for your comments, I'll set to work. :) JN466 22:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've rewritten the section to address the above points, pls review. About the title, I wouldn't call it history, because many aspects of that history are covered in the subsequent sections. This section is just to give a brief overview—how long has Scientology been active in Germany, where are the main centres, and how many Scientologists are there in Germany.

• On reflection, have renamed the section "History" as you suggested. --JN466 07:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Public opposition to Scientology in Germany

• I don't think that "to Scientology in Germany" is needed (because it is part of the article title). I may need to check MoS policy though. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree; it's understood. Removed. --JN466 11:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I have moved text from the this section to Background, as it has more relevance to the latter. Sanitizer616 (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I can see what you mean, but I think I preferred it where it was. The paragraph you moved is about Germany's stance, which is part of the article topic proper; it is not really part of the generic background. But I'm relatively easy either way. --JN466 21:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I have shifted a sentence to improve the flow, it would seem to be a good idea to offer the reader an introduction to the backstory at this point, before entering into further detail, as the article does. Sanitizer616 (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
          • This sentence sequence: "Scientology is not considered a religion in Germany, but is generally characterized as a Sekte (cult or sect), or as an exploitative profit-making venture preying on vulnerable minds [3][11][12][13] as such the German government has taken a very strong stance against the organisation.[14][11] This is related to the lessons of German history ..." doesn't work for me. The "as such" is awkward, and seeks to explain the same thing that "This is related ..." seeks to explain. Can we improve this? --JN466 20:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• "popular support for banning the Church runs at 67%", awkward wording. Consider "A poll conducted by Der Spiegel in September 2008 found 67% of Germans favour a ban on Scientology".
  • Okay, done. --JN466 07:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• I've added a paragraph on a notable controversy around Scientologists offering after-school tutoring services to this section. --JN466 13:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Germany's stance

Regarding this issue raised on the talk page (my comment), surely in the interests of balance it is accurate to mention the role of the American Scientology lobby in influencing the American position on Germany's stance?

• To reiterate, I notice, Kent's article is referenced for arbitrary points elsewhere in the article, but his argument is not referenced at all in the one place it is most applicable.
• As Seiwert points out, the so called "anti-cult lobby" was effective in it's influence of the German position, this point is dealt with in the article, so why then is it unacceptable to mention Kent's analysis of Scientology's lobbying drive as one possible explanation for America's response?
• Also, regarding the celebrity letter, Time notes that Bertram Fields is the attorney for both Cruise and Travolta, and Kent observes that "many of the signatories had close ties to prominent Scientology actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta (Whittell 1997)" but again, this corelation has been ommited, despite it being note worthy. Sanitizer616 (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added a few details from Kent, as well as a mention of the Fields—Travolta/Cruise connection. --JN466 21:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Jayen, what is your reason for declining to support the inclusion of an explicit mention of the Scientology lobby and its role in the German affair? it can be supported by a verifiable source, and one line is hardly undue weight, or do you view it as a fringe theory perhaps? Are Kent's academic credentials not sufficient to allow inclusion of his view here? Sanitizer616 (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Kent is focusing on lobbying activities in 1996 and 1997, addressed to the Clinton administration. However, the U.S. Government's criticism of Germany began two or three years before that, immediately after Scientology was recognised as a religion in 1993, and it continued after the end of the Clinton administration. It was even stepped up under Bush: [2] I just think historical events have somewhat overtaken Kent's thesis – and it is very much his thesis – that the criticism in 96/97 was only due to Travolta's access to Clinton. Besides, everybody in the U.S. has their lobby; this is not specific to Scientology. It is how the US political system works. Another difference is that religious freedom and religious pluralism is a core value in the US, unlike Germany, which is dominated by two large, long-established Christian denominations. --JN466 19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Could you say how would you include this? Can you propose a wording? JN466 19:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Well, agreed, it's Kent's thesis, and lobbying is standard practice in the US. However, the historical period covered in the first number of paragraphs of the section is precisely the one Kent's thesis covers so I'm not sure about your first point. We could begin by distilling this quote: "Several activities that Scientology undertook near the beginning of the 1990s had a significant impact later on upon a few American foreign relations issues.Ä First, it set out to improve its image with politicians and the population at large by undertaking a major public relations effort in the nation's capitol. As part of this public relations effort, a Scientology affiliate in Los Angeles was paying "almost $725,000 to a Washington-based firm [Federal Legislative Associates] to lobby Congress in 1997 and 1996" (Dahl 1998a, 14A). These lobbying efforts (many performed by the firm's managing partner, David H. Miller) eventually bore fruit during the battle between Scientology and Germany." Sanitizer616 (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is, where do we put it in the timeline? The first time Scientology appeared as a topic in the State Department's human rights report on Germany was, I believe, in the 1993 report (published in 1994), predating that lobbying effort. It was mentioned each year's human rights report from then on, according to the New York Times. For the mention of lobbying to make sense, i.e. for it to have an explanatory function for the reader, we'd have to add, say, a mention that (according to Kent) 'the section of the State Department's 1996 human rights report that was harshly critical of Germany's actions towards Scientology "was written by the White House…."' Now, I can't figure out who Kent is quoting the "was written by the White House" from. The New York Times article he mentions is here: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/18/opinion/journal-clinton-s-travolta-fever.html and this does not have that sentence. The only other source he quotes in that paragraph is an American Spectator article from a newsgroup posting:

    American Spectator. 1997. "She Blinded Them With Science." (April), 15; Downloaded From an <alt.religion.scientology> posting by Felix Tilley entitled, "Halfbright, the Whitehouse, $CN, and the Germans-from TAS," on March 18, 1997.

  • There was an article of that name in the American Spectator: [3] but I can't access it. Can you?
  • At any rate, we should be careful not to add something that puts a US president at the centre of a conspiracy theory, unless it's got multiple first-class sources.
  • Another thing is that the Travolta/Clinton meeting Kent mentions was in September 1997, i.e. after the January 1997 brouhaha, and after the February 1997 asylum case decision.
  • I still think that this belongs more into Scientology in the United States than it does in this article, but we could mention the lobbying and that the 1996 human rights report in January 1997 was unusually harsh. The New York Times article mentions that too (last page). Obviously, the Hollywood letter was timed to coincide with that human rights report; Scientologists certainly knew in advance that the report was going to be tough on Germany. JN466 21:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Xenu.com has an Italian version of the article here and Google scholar has the article in English here. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The a.r.s. post that Kent cites, containing the American Spectator article, is here. I'll pop the text on the talk page. --JN466 22:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Hmm, well, in response to - "The first time Scientology appeared as a topic in the State Department's human rights report on Germany was, I believe, in the 1993 report (published in 1994), predating that lobbying effort," - Kent says, in the quote above, "Several activities that Scientology undertook near the beginning of the 1990s had a significant impact later on upon a few American foreign relations issues,". I'll have to go and look through the item again, and check the details before commenting further on this. But, on a purely technical point, I don't think we need to vet the accuracy of Kent's article, it has already (I presume) been peer reviewed, so the only question we need to ask here is whether or not it is a usable source, and personally, I believe it meets the grade; after that we are dealing primarily with points of interest, no?? Sanitizer616 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Kent clearly states: "the article argues that Scientology's Hollywood celebrities were sufficiently influential in their federal lobbying during the Clinton administration that they influenced the American position (although not always in the direction they desired) on the American-versus-German debate over Scientology that took place between the two countries."He's stating the entire Clinton era as having importance for the Scientology v Germany issue, the dates you are singling don't necessarily have any real bearing on what Kent is offering.
    • Kent notes that, "Most significantly, after the IRS/Scientology agreement, the United States Department of State now considered Scientology to be a tax-exempt religion, so it began criticizing Germany's actions against the organization and its members. Indeed, by the time that the IRS issued its agreement in late 1993, the battle between Germany and Scientology was growing in intensity."
    • Kent also states, "Several activities that Scientology undertook near the beginning of the 1990s had a significant impact later on upon a few American foreign relations issues.Ä First, it set out to improve its image with politicians and the population at large by undertaking a major public relations effort in the nation's capitol. As part of this public relations effort, a Scientology affiliate in Los Angeles was paying 'almost $725,000 to a Washington-based firm [Federal Legislative Associates] to lobby Congress in 1997 and 1996' (Dahl 1998a, 14A). These lobbying efforts (many performed by the firm's managing partner, David H. Miller) eventually bore fruit during the battle between Scientology and Germany."
    • Also Clinton met Travolta in April, not, as Jayen mentioned, September. Kent:"Travolta attended an April 1997 summit on volunteerism in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in order 'to present educational materials created by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.' The next day, Travolta met President Clinton who told him, 'Your program sounds great.... More than that..., I'd really love to help you with your issue over in Germany with Scientology' (Travolta quoting Clinton in J. Young 1998, 106).Ä Clinton informed Travolta that 'he had a roommate years ago who was a Scientologist and had really liked him, and respected his views on it. He said he felt we were given an unfair hand in [Germany] and that he wanted to fix it' (Ressner 1997).Ä Clinton followed up on this conversation by going 'to the extraordinary length of assigning his national security advisor, Sandy Berger, to be the administration's Scientology point person' (J. Young 1998, 138)." Sanitizer616 (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the revert in the lead. I've added references to the lobbying by lobbyists and celebrities: [4]. As for the Clinton–Travolta meeting, you are quite right. The meeting was in April; September was Travolta's CSCE testimony in Washington, and the meeting with Berger. At any rate though, both meetings were after the 1996 HR report that was critical of Germany, and after the February 1997 asylum decision. Do you feel the meeting between Travolta and Clinton and/or the Clinton quote about his roommate should be mentioned in this article? --JN466 12:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Never mind, I've added it: [5]. --JN466 13:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Monitoring by the German domestic intelligence services

• Do you think the specific title is necessary? Would "Monitoring" be too ambiguous?
• The wording of the first sentence could be improved; "because" is not a great way to start a sentence.
• "Berlin Office for the Protection of the Constitution" this is the first time it's mentioned, yet it's given no context. Also, if an article does exist for it (perhaps as the original German word) then it could be linked. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • [6]. Let's call it "government surveillance", that is in agreement with Deutsche Welle [7], the New York Times [8], BBC [9][10]. The old wording was okay too, used here by Associated Press for example: [11], but now it's shorter. --JN466 21:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The German domestic intelligence services exist at federal ("Bundesamt") and state ("Landesamt") level. The Berlin Office for the Protection of the Constitution is the regional equivalent of the nationwide [Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz|Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution]. We don't have an article on the Berlin Landesamt. I've made it clear in the text that both the Federal Office and some State Offices have monitored Scientology. The distinction is not trivial, because the State Offices are not under the supervision of the Federal Office: they are under the supervision of the state (not the federal) interior ministries. The text really should have made that clear before, so that was a good catch. --JN466 21:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Aborted initiative to ban Scientology

• Do we need "aborted"? The outcome speaks for itself in the text and the reader would lose nothing by having this removed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Deleted. --JN466 07:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• The second image in this section is too large, much of the text could be slimmed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've reduced the size and shortened the caption. (Did you mean the caption text, or the text generally in that section?) --JN466 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    • No the caption text. Better now. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• The dablinks checker indicates two links to disambiguation pages: "Children of God" and "Herald Tribune".
• No errors reported with the external links. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Disambig links fixed. JN466 21:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• No issues with the images in the article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)