Talk:Russian court rejects move to ban Hindu scripture

Review of revision 1352364 [Not ready]
Note, an opinion that the case was inspired by the Church would need to be attributed &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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)