Talk:Scientology in Germany/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi, I will be reviewing this article for GA. On initial reading I am impressed, in that it seems a NPOV article on an intriguing topic. A very interesting article. I will add comments as I find issues to comment upon. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The titles under References should not be in all caps.
Why are "churches" and "missions" in quotes? Is this because the German government does not consider them as such, or that the Scientologists do not call them that, or that no one calls them that? (It is called the Church of Scientologists, is it not, by most, ... or not?)

—Mattisse (Talk) 03:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I followed the cited (German) source here, which has "Kirchen" and "Missionen" in quotes. It's probably because the German government (and press) are reluctant to describe the Church of Scientology as a religious organisation. The German government, for example, always pointedly refers to the "Scientology Organisation" (see for example the leaflet shown in one of the pictures) rather than the "Scientology-Kirche". But I am happy to lose the quotation marks if you prefer; I don't think English writing usually has them. Jayen 466 21:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The German Church of Scientology does refer to them as Kirchen (churches): [1] Jayen466 21:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems to be that to be NPOV, the article should follow whatever the Scientologts call themselves and not the Germany government's skepticism. That is the government's POV. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Jayen 466 19:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I think the terms "missions" and "churches" are used in translation because those are the terms the Church of Scientology itself uses to describe their locations, with missions rankling, basically, a bit lower on the scale than full churches in terms of stability, financial support, what have you. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Prose issues

Using "firstly" is unduly stuffy
You mention "The Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution)" twice in the body of the article . The second time, you say "the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz ("BfV", Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution)". It should be fully established at the first mention, then whatever you are going to use to refer to it as, the "BfV" or whatever, used subsequently.
Your first mention of and link to Hubbard needs to be given a little context for the general reader.

—Mattisse (Talk) 16:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly -- Done Thanks for addressing the BfV issue. I wonder if we should italicise "Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz" and its abbreviation, BfV, as they are foreign-language terms? Jayen 466 19:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

This review will be suspended as there is a content disputes going on.

—Mattisse (Talk) 17:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

So the upshot is that the legal status of Scientology as a religion or a philosophical community in Germany is unresolved? But that Scientologists pretty much carry on there as usual?
Why would the U.S. State Department say, "We have criticized the Germans on this, but we aren't going to support the Scientologists' terror tactics against the German government."? Were there ever accusations that Scientology was using terror tactics against the German government? Or is this a reference to "its writings, its concept and its disrespect for minorities – that we cannot tolerate and that we consider in violation of the constitution. But they put very little of this into practice."?

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- So the upshot is that the legal status of Scientology as a religion or a philosophical community in Germany is unresolved? But that Scientologists pretty much carry on there as usual? Yes, that is correct.
- The "terror tactics" still refer to the Nazi comparisons. Here is the relevant source text this is based on:
  Since the State Department's commentaries on the Hollywood letter such an approximation of the positions hardly occurs anymore, as on the one hand the official critique of Germany was maintained in a diplomatically mild fashion; on the other hand, Scientology's Nazi parallels were harshly rebuked. State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns explained the American position as follows: "'We have criticized the Germans on this, but we aren't going to support the Scientologists' terror tactics against the German government.'" (WAP, Jan. 27, 1997). Accordingly, except for the above mentioned article using Scientology's frame (LAT March 13, 1997), all other articles continue to employ the discrimination frame, but have become more cautious in evaluating the German government's policy.
  — http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/schoen.html
- I've added information to make the context of these statements clearer. Jayen 466 02:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing as a reviewer, as Geometry guy has taken over the review and is undermining my ability to continue. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]