Talk:Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Linkable court docs

message: *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)
thread_title: Unbalanced tag

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Noncompliant tag

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Why publications from government organizations usually don't have authors included

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: You speak the truth.--Fahrenheit451 18:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cultural reasons for not naming the authors

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified