Talk:Russian court rejects move to ban Hindu scripture

Review of revision 1352364 [Not ready]

Revision 1352364 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The bald statement that it was inspired by the Russian Orthodox Church etc. is unacceptable. Not only do I not see it backed up by the sources (the closest I found was a statement that something of the sort was probable), but even if one of the sources said it I'd be inclined to take it as unreliable speculation by the source unless it came presented with compelling evidence. The word libel comes to mind. However ostensibly libelous, the claim is made in a few reliable sources, like the already cited Times of India ("Reports indicate that Victor Fyodotov, the public prosecutor of Tomsk, on the instigation of local church figures, filed a case in a local court to get the book "Bhagwad-Gita, As It Is", with commentaries by Swami Prabhupada, banned".) and the now added Wall Street Journal ("The spokesman said Judge Galina Butenko of the Leninsky District Court in Tomsk rejected the plea, which was filed by a group linked to the Christian Orthodox Church, saying that the Bhagavad Gita “did not advocate social discord,” as the group had claimed"). How did you get that picture? Were you in Kolkata on the 19th? I'd like to understand the origin of the picture much better than I do, in order to be comfortable including it. Yes, I happened to be there and took the picture myself. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1352364 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The bald statement that it was inspired by the Russian Orthodox Church etc. is unacceptable. Not only do I not see it backed up by the sources (the closest I found was a statement that something of the sort was probable), but even if one of the sources said it I'd be inclined to take it as unreliable speculation by the source unless it came presented with compelling evidence. The word libel comes to mind. However ostensibly libelous, the claim is made in a few reliable sources, like the already cited Times of India ("Reports indicate that Victor Fyodotov, the public prosecutor of Tomsk, on the instigation of local church figures, filed a case in a local court to get the book "Bhagwad-Gita, As It Is", with commentaries by Swami Prabhupada, banned".) and the now added Wall Street Journal ("The spokesman said Judge Galina Butenko of the Leninsky District Court in Tomsk rejected the plea, which was filed by a group linked to the Christian Orthodox Church, saying that the Bhagavad Gita “did not advocate social discord,” as the group had claimed"). How did you get that picture? Were you in Kolkata on the 19th? I'd like to understand the origin of the picture much better than I do, in order to be comfortable including it. Yes, I happened to be there and took the picture myself. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Note, an opinion that the case was inspired by the Church would need to be attributed — to someone other than a news agency. --Pi zero (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• See above. Thanks for your review and regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The source passages you cite for the Church-inspiration do not say what you're claiming they say. They are, evidently, careful not to say what you're claiming they say. Unlike this article, they do not say that the case was Church-inspired; the first passage you mention above attributes the assertion to someone else (that is, they don't say it's true, they say someone else said it was true — though their attribution is rather vague), and the second passage you mention above doesn't present the claim even as someone else's, but simply presents another fact that might be construed as indirect evidence for such a conclusion, and lets the reader decide what to make of that evidence.

Although neutrality is an end in itself, with regard to libel I might point out that the two parties who might be subject to litigation for publishing libel would be the author and the publishing reviewer. --Pi zero (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not mind modifying the passage in the article so it is not seen as overstating the sources' own claims. Maybe it is best if you agree to do this, as a neutral and objective party. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyhow, I've just done away with the entire passage. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1352991 [Passed]

Revision 1352991 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1352991 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.