Talk:Scientology status by country/Archive 1

Problem reference
Taiwan,

Here's an image on a Church of Scientology site that's supposed to be an article from the "Taiwan Central News Agency". The Central News Agency (Republic of China) doesn't call themselves that. So what is this gif file supposed to be? AndroidCat 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, find out then. I read "Central News Agendcy", Taiwan, here. Misou 19:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The first text after the logo reads "Taiwan Central News Agency", which I've explained is a problem since they don't call themselves that. I challenge this reference and will continue to remove it. Find something better, hopefully published on a 3rd party site. AndroidCat 19:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Single-sourced refs in the intro
All the references in the intro, except two CESNUR ones, are directly sourced to Church of Scientology web sites. One of the CESNUR ones is text of a letter from a South African official to P Sondergaard of the Church of Scientology, so Scientology is part of that chain. The other CESNUR one has serious problems because of the large differences between their English version and the Le Monde text in French. The fact that many of these claimed recognitions seem to be close to Hubbard's March 13 birthday (a favourite for slipping empty "L. Ron Hubbard Day" proclamations past city mayor staffs) only deepens my unease at how reliable and verifiable the sources are. AndroidCat 01:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, while Church of Scientology sites are WP:RS for the subject of the Church of Scientology, they are not RS for the recognition status by various countries. I found one RS for New Zealand, but the rest need one. The clock is ticking. AndroidCat 20:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See above, from July. (Before anyone says that I've never pointed out the problem with the refs.) AndroidCat 04:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Map is inaccurate
The map at the beginning of this article shows Great Britain as recognising the Church of Scientology as a relgion.

This is not the case as of Feb 08. Can we fix this without too much trouble? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.104 (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This falls into the problem of what exactly is government recognition? In the UK (keeping in mind that England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have different rules), the organization isn't a charity (although it gets around that by operating as an Australian charity via reciprocal agreements), but gets a break on some taxes. It might perform marriages, but that's usually a formality on top of the civil process. Likewise in Canada, there's no simple Religion or Not meterstick. This is part of the reason that the map was removed from the main Scientology article. AndroidCat (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with AndroidCAT now. ): I supported this map strongly in past but it will always remain inaccurate and disputed due to its generalizing nature. I'll remove it. -- Stan talk 23:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ulyanovsk police search local branch office of Church of Scientology

 * Potential source to use in this article, the building searched was the Narconon Center of Promoting Healthy Lifestyle, in Dimitrovgrad. Cirt (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Department of State's claims about Germany
This article claims:

"The U.S. Department of State has repeatedly claimed that Germany's actions constitute government and societal discrimination against minority religious groups, within which it includes Scientology."

This seems to me a bit more strongly worded than either of the citations given for this claim where the strongest wording by the State Department with regard to Scientology seems to be:

"The U.S. government expressed its concerns over infringement of individual rights because of religious affiliation with respect to Scientology and other minority religious groups."

"expressed its concerns" vs. "claimed that Germany's actions constitute government and societal discrimination". This article seems to be making a claim that the state department is not making. Namely directly accusing the German government of discrimination. Does anyone else think the wording of the article should be changed to more accurately reflect the cited material?

Pahool (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think more strongly worded assertions by the US S.D. might be found, but until we have found them, I think it would be a good idea to change the wording to match the sources cited at present. Jayen 466 23:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a US Government source that uses the word discrimination in relation to Scientology in Germany: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/germany/us1999.html The wording is probably correct; I think the thing to do is to do some source research and add these sources, preferably sourced to the state.gov site directly. If you can help, that would be great. Cheers, Jayen 466 23:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It uses the word "discrimination" in three places with respect to Scientology:
 * "Scientologists continued to report discrimination, alleging both government-condoned and societal harassment because of their church affiliation."
 * "Scientologists assert that business firms whose owners or executives are Scientologists, as well as artists who are church members, faced boycotts and discrimination, sometimes with state and local government approval."
 * "Scientologists continued to report instances of societal discrimination."
 * All three of these are instances of Scientology claiming discrimination, not the U.S. department of state claiming that "Germany's actions constitute government and societal discrimination against minority religious groups, within which it includes Scientology."
 * Pahool (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to search the 1999 text for "discriminat", some of the occurrences are the verb or adjective, e.g.
 * From the final section of the 1999 report:
 * -- Jayen 466 13:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added the 2005 RF report; this was there previously and I deleted it a while ago when I inserted the new 2007 report. I now realise I shouldn't have done so, since the 2005 report sources the discrimination claim. I believe wording is now covered by sources (again). Jayen 466 23:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm missing something, the 2005 report is almost no different from the 2006 and 2007 report. It still does not include any wording where the U.S. department of state claims that "Germany's actions constitute government and societal discrimination against minority religious groups, within which it includes Scientology." I am changing the wording of the article to reflect the wording of the sources. Please feel free to edit to improve accuracy.
 * Pahool (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've put in some of the actual wording of the final paragraph of the 2005 report, and added the 1999 one. The US have certainly stated that in their (not just the Scientologists' opinion) there is discrimination based on religious affiliation in Germany; the "sect filter" in particular was criticised. There have also been a few diplomatic exchanges on all of this; I'll see if I can dig up some more sources. Cheers, -- Jayen 466 13:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct I hope I wasn't too hasty in making changes to the page. I definitely agree with your assessment and with the current wording. The sect filter comments definitely constitute an explicit claim by the U.S. State Department of discriminatory practices. I appreciate your examples.
 * Pahool (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's alright Pahool, no prob. Cheers, -- Jayen 466 01:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganize Layout
I think a restructuring of this article into having "States recognizing Scientology as a Religion", "States not recognizing Scientology as a Religion", and "Other States which have ruled on Scientology" sections with each state and their current text. I just think it might be more useful at a glance for users specifically looking for states that do or don't support it. O76923 (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's really that easy to divide countries into those classifications. AndroidCat (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with AndroidCat. -- Jayen 466 21:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide View
This article gives too much weight and text to the United States as opposed to other countries and places in the world, such as Australia, Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, etc. These other areas should all be expanded upon with sources. Cirt (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't know if that tag is correct or if the article fits Category:Articles with limited geographic scope. While the article is heavy on the US view (for a primarily US-based organization), that is all contained within the US section. I think that tag is more for articles that, as a whole, reflect a particular local view. AndroidCat (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Suffice it to say that the article is deficient in the areas mentioned above. The sections on the areas other than the United States should be expanded.  Cirt (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

Has there been any objective reasoning why Scientology uses the U.S.D.O.S. (Dept. of State) and not their own legal department? This seems to me something like making school friends of someone on the (American version) football team as a "personal body guard" against play-ground bullies; if only because every time a country declares Scientology not a religion, the D.O.S. apparently feels like it has to throw its political weight against that country.

Nothing personal, merely an observation & question. 76.171.211.8 (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Source for situation in Greece
The following seems to be a useful source for expanding the section on Greece:  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 09:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Status in Canada
I'm sorry, but that source is completely incorrect. CoS applied for religious charity status and was turned down in 1999, afterwards their authorization to perform marriages was revoked in all Canadian provices. I'll dig up more references of their current status, but I'd rather see the entry for Canada removed rather than the current whitewash entry. As well, the R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto case, resulting in two criminal convictions against the organization is extremely relevant. If Jayen466 continues to exclude it, then perhaps the article needs a name change. AndroidCat (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The book cited is from 1997, so material on more recent developments would be useful; I was unable to unearth anything up to now. No mention in the US SD Religious Freedom Reports, for one, which would tend to indicate that status in Canada is normalised. The Toronto case you mention dates back to 1982 according to one of the articles cited; there was no mention of it in the 1997 work I cited, so its relevance to state recognition needs to be demonstrated. For your reference, Boyle, one of the authors of the book, is a Professor of Law and the Director of the Human Rights Centre of the University of Essex. (The co-author is also from the University of Essex.) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Normalized would be OR on your part. Regardless of the author, the book is obsolete. AndroidCat (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Then let's try and find more recent sources. But I don't understand how referring to a 1982 court case makes the article less obsolete, it was fifteen years prior to the book's publication date. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As to Davis, his profile is on http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/profile-prof-dr-derek-h-davis.htm and says:
 * So I don't think he is a Scientologist, as claimed by an IP earlier today. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a case that began in 1992, not 1982, and I believe that all the various appeals from this and Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto weren't concluded until after their charity application was rejected. AndroidCat (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

References: The Church of Scientology applied for religious charity status: Gregg Hagglund, who posted on ARS, was an intervenor in the application, however the ARS post isn't required to show that it failed: The Church of Scientology is not currently listed on the government's list of charities: News article mentioning their status: Failure to receive charity status in Canada tripped off a cascade in the provinces, which require charity status for recognition as a denomination (able to perform marriages, etc). Ontario for example:
 * J. Saunders & T. Appleby, Scientology Seeks Tax Receipt Status, The Globe and Mail, 19 January, 1998, A1, A6.
 * Canada Revenue Agency Charity List
 * BECOMING A RECOGNIZED RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION IN ONTARIO

I will try to dig up references that tie these together, but it's quite clear that Freedom of Religion and Belief: A World Report is completely out of date for Canada, with every statement in the Canada section now incorrect. AndroidCat (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at the refs later – just in the middle of something – but why was the first sentence of the version you reinstated earlier "In Canada, the Church of Scientology is considered a religious non-profit organization" (no source given)? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've added a more recent (2007) source confirming its status as a religious non-profit organization and its right to perform marriages, and I've added a sentence about the failure to achieve charity status – while I haven't found anything citable, there is enough evidence on the web to show that an attempt was made to register as a charity, and after all you've said above I am satisfied that that effort was unsuccessful, justifying the wording "has failed to win" rather than plain "does not have". I hope that addresses your concerns; let me know if it doesn't. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've had a look around, and I can't find any evidence that Scientologist ministers have lost the right to perform marriages in Canada. On their own websites, they state that the right is intact, including in Ontario (e.g. here). I suggest that if we can't find sources contradicting what we have we'll have to go with that. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that there is a November 2001 Ontario Legislative Assembly debate here referring to the right of Scientology ministers to perform marriages. (The debate concerned a proposed lowering of the qualifications required to perform marriages in the province of Ontario.) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Scientology web sites are non-RS for their recognition status. I'm trying to find some information on their current corporate status, but I'm a little busy right now. AndroidCat (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Scientology web sites are non-RS for their recognition status:: Obviously, and I'm not suggesting citing them for this. Yet the Ontario Legislative debate establishes that Scientologist ministers' right to perform marriages was intact in Ontario in late 2001, agreeing to that extent with the primary sources, and the secondary 1997–2007 sources cited in the article. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Androidcat, have you found anything further on the status in Canada, or do you expect to still find anything that adds to or contradicts the sources cited? Otherwise, I'd take the Disputed marker out again; the section is sourced, after all. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Boyle reference has been out of date since 1999, and I'm not sure that it cites any primary sources for those claims that can be verified. (Do you have access to a print version that lists sources?) I am continuing to try to find more recent sources, but this is hampered by the reluctance of any of the parties involved to go on record.
 * The Canada Revenue Agency (federal) doesn't release any information on charity status applications or failures—even that there was an application.
 * The provincial authorities over authorization to perform marriages may or may not publish lists of allowed groups (I'm checking), but they've all passed the headache of defining religions to the Canada Revenue Agency by requiring charity status, which Scientology doesn't have.
 * The Church of Scientology doesn't issue press releases when they lose status.
 * Without sources, the press doesn't touch the subject.
 * Even the religious non-profit corporations that used to be listed on Canadian government web sites aren't currently showing up.


 * The Varsity article is quite good for a university paper, but since it glosses over that there is no unified Canadian authourization for being able to perform marriages (10 individual provinces and three territories for that), I'd need to see a better source. AndroidCat (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this, AndroidCat. I checked the Boyle in amazon Search Inside, but couldn't find a list of primary sources. And I scoured the Internet at the time -- including the USSD religious freedom reports, UN – nothing one way or the other about status in Canada. We have the 2001 Ontario statement from above, but that's not much. Hope you can turn up more; until then let's go with how you've left the article. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Androidcat, do we need the citation tag for the status as a "religious non-profit organization" in Canada, given that this status is mentioned in the Varsity article? Not sure now whether you were aware that it said that there or not. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it does mention that. (And I have the suspicion that this very article was the source for that.) Scientology's incorporation used to show up in a federal search as religious non-profit, but now there's nothing under Scientology at all! Since it's very hard to prove a negative, that'll have to do until I can find out just what the heck they're now operating as and its status. ("Welcome to the Church of 4356871 Canada Inc"?) AndroidCat (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

From this [Canada Revenue Agency] guide, it's quite clear that there is no separate "religious non-profit" status. Organizations (frequently religious organizations) can be charities (which Scientology is not), and they can be non-profit (which they probably are), but not some classification invented by a student newspaper article. AndroidCat (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

France
There is no such thing as recognized religion in France : "l'état ne reconnaît ni ne salarie aucun culte" (very famous 1905 law of separation of state and church that every french people know). May be translated as "the state does not recognize or subsidies any religion). By the way, this is one of the reasons why muslims have great difficulties to practice their religion in France. There is no reason for tax recognition because all "associations loi 1901" pay no taxes at all, and the state cannot oppose the creation of an association. The only reason why scientology is attacked is because it does not abide by the law. It should be noted that if scientology had any proof in any council of Europe member state (including France) that their freedom of religion was hindered they could very easily sue, which in my knowledge they have never done. So there is not the beginning of a proof that scientology has ever been discriminated in France, and if there ever was, then they can easily have France condemned for that.    I haven't checked through all the references yet, but I think what we now have in the section on France goes some way beyond the scope of this article and would perhaps be better used for a "France" subsection in Scientology controversies. This article is only about state recognition as a religion, or lack thereof. Where such recognition is lacking, the country's rationale for the refusal should be outlined, but I think we should not try to cover individual controversies in the respective countries in detail. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The information is highly relevant and appropriately sourced. It should not be removed without consensus to do so on the talk page established. Cirt (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually that section is full of bad sourcing (alleged reproductions of foreign-language government material on POV websites and even answers.com!) and trivia. Suggest it be rewritten using only the reliable secondary sources already listed and culled of the off-topic trivia. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up most of it and will remove the tags. Remember please that this article is not "List of court cases against Scientology and Scientologists". This article is about government RECOGNITION of Scientology. (--Justallofthem (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks better. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hubbard Center closed up in Samara

 * Relevant source of info for this article. Cirt (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relevant source of info for this article. Cirt (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

✅, thanks. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 20:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Weakly sourced and overused paper
Reviewing its sources, I don't know if this paper should be relied on as much as it is. (21 times!)



For example, for the article text "While the religious character of Scientology is today recognized by most courts and governments on both sides of the Atlantic and throughout the rest of the world," the reference in the paper is Heber Jentszsch, "The Growth of Scientology Throughout Europe," http://www.scientology-europe.org/en_US/europe/pg001.html, posted 2003. In other places, Wikipedia articles are referenced, which can cause circular referencing problems. I'm not saying that it should be removed completely, but there's no way it should be used as much as it is. AndroidCat (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I understand where you're coming from. When I first read the paper, I had mixed feelings about the fact that Wikipedia appeared in a couple of footnotes. However, neither of those assertions is included in this article. And if Davis deems Jentzsch worth citing, it is his reasonable judgment as a scholar (and a highly reputable one at that, as far as I can see – there is some info on Davis here and here; the paper was originally presented at the 2004 CESNUR conference, and is also present on the CESNUR website). The paper is useful because, to my knowledge, it is the only academic paper that has the exact same topic as this present article; so unless there are other papers addressing this topic, I think it is okay for it to be heavily cited. And at the time, I was able to independently verify all the assertions cited here (with the exception of those relating to Scotland and Taiwan) by locating alternative sources that backed him up. I have no problem if we want to add those. Is there any claim that you have a particular concern about, apart from the "most courts and governments"? Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the Scotland passage, which was indeed a circular reference (that part of the sentence was evidently cited to WP as well – the Scotland info is present in this old version of Church of Scientology, unsourced (and in fact with the qualifier "it is believed") and long since deleted). Davis also appears confused about the German double taxation issue, presenting two versions of the same event, it appears to me, one of them an obfuscatory one by Jentzsch that makes something of it which it wasn't. Not a problem, since that info is not cited here, but somewhat undermining my faith in Davis' scholarship in this paper. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's still a weakly sourced and overused paper. AndroidCat (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I most certainly agree with about the problems with this source. Citing Heber Jentzsch or Wikipedia are very troubling points indeed. This source should not be used. Cirt (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Does presented at a CESNUR conference and present on their web site count the same as a peer-reviewed academic publication? AndroidCat (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No. A conference paper hosted on cesnur.org that has not been published anywhere else is just that – an unpublished conference paper. (In fact, a number of such papers hosted on the site state "preliminary version – do not quote". The Davis paper, however, was published.) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The Davis paper was published how exactly? The sheer sloppiness of it (directly citing the Church of Scientology, Wikipedia and other poor practices) really make me question what kind of editorial and peer review (if any) the publication had. "This article was published in Gerhard Besier, et al, eds., Zeitdiagnosen: Religion and Conformity (Lit Verlag: Munster, Germany, 2004)." Which means what really? Crad Kilodney could publish my deep thoughts, but they would probably be no deeper for the process. AndroidCat (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Kazakh prosecutors seeking liquidation of so-called Scientology Church in Karaganda

 * Good source to add for a new subsection in this article, Kazakhstan. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good source to add for a new subsection in this article, Kazakhstan. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Scientologie: Ce n'est pas une Église
Catholic religious leader weighing in with the viewpoint that Scientology is not a church. Cirt (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Kazakh court bans scientology organization in Karaganda region

 * Another good source to add for an as-of-yet nonexistent section, Kazakhstan. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Another good source to add for an as-of-yet nonexistent section, Kazakhstan. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ghana
Cirt (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ghana
 * Scientology cult targets Ghanaian children, Ghana News.

Head of Scientologist “Narconon” center sentenced in Pavlodar, Kazakhstan
, rough translation here. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Status in Germany
I note that someone has indicated that Scientology is protected by German law. This however seems to contradict what the German government itself has said, and clearly what Time magazine said here, which was written substantially after the statement by the German government, and which says, quoting, "(Since 1995, the Church of Scientology has not enjoyed the legal protections accorded to religions in Germany, after a judge ruled that it was not a religion but a group "masquerading as a religion in order to make a profit.")" Can the editor please give me an indication why he believes the status of Scientology in Germany has changed since that article was produced? John Carter (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not responsible for any pro-Scientology or Anti-german viewpoint. Their believes is not knowledge. The status has not changed; it is and will be protected. Get a neutral viewpoint. Wispanow (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a bizarre response, and no source has been provided to support this assertion. The cited document from the German parliament website, which is the current brief for German members of parliament on the issue, compiled by the Parliament's Scientific Services division, says, at the top of page 2, "Umstritten ist, ob es sich bei den scientologischen Lehren um Glauben, Religion bzw. Weltanschauung handelt. Und fraglich ist, ob die Scientology-Lehren von der Organisation nur als Vorwand für eine ausschließlich wirtschaftliche Zielsetzung benutzt werden. Dies würde nach überwiegender Auffassung zum Ausschluss des Schutzes durch Art. 4 GG führen." ("What is disputed is whether the scientological teachings represent a belief, religion or worldview. And the question is whether Scientology's teachings are only used by the organisation as a pretext for an exclusively economical aim. According to majority legal opinion, this would result in the exclusion of protection by Article 4 of the Grundgesetz (German Constitution).") What Wispanow's edit made the text say is the opposite of what the cited source says. -- JN  466  11:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * rv: Read the constitution. And stop publishing your one-sided, isolated, pro-Scientology statements. Two lawyers cant change the constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wispanow (talk • contribs) 13:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to change information in article
I request that the content of the Germany information in the table be adjusted from "in any case the freedom of Scientology as a religious or ideological community and its believers are protected under Article 4 of the German constitution" be chanced to read "if the latter were the case, this would most likely imply that Scientology would not qualify for protection as a religious or ideological community under article 4 of the German constitution". I request this change for several reasons:
 * 1) the opponent of this change, in his justification for his reversions, uses only almost irrelevant commentary like "Read the constitution" here and "the constitution is valid" here.
 * 2) To the best of my knowledge, no one actually disagrees with these statements. However, both the document from the German government itself, cited above, and the article from Time magazine I cited as evidence both indicate that Scientology's status as a religion is open to question. Ä translation of the German government's policy statement is given above. The Time article says, and I quote here, that a German judge has ruled that it is not a religion but rather "masquerading as a religion in order to make a profit", and there is no indication of any subsequent changes in German law to change that. Therefore, I see, basically, two sources which indicate that Scientology's status is as it is indicated in the change I proposed above, and absolutely nothing other than a mistaken assertion that the consitution is not only valid but directly relevant in this instance to the contrary. If it would be possible for that individual to produce specific, third-party, verifiable sources to support his contention that it qualifies as a religion, then I believe everyone here would welcome the change. To date, however, no such evidence has been put forward, and I cannot see how we should have the article locked in a state in which it indicates something which is not directly supported by any reliable sources yet produced. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please achieve consensus for your change before using the template. You might need to use WP:DR (such as asking for a third opinion) to get an outside view. tedder (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, for what it's worth, we have a degree of consensus already, and, considering that altering sourced material constitutes disruptive editing, which is a sanctionable matter on pages like this, as per the template at the top of the page, I think at this point we already have the grounds for such a change. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I support John Carter's editprotected request. It simply brings the article text back in line with the cited source. -- JN 466  18:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For reference, the cited source is this document from the German Parliament website. Here is a google translation of the paragraph at the top of page 2: |en|Umstritten%20ist%2C%20ob%20es%20sich%20bei%20den%20scientologischen%20Lehren%20um%20Glauben%2C%20Religion%20bzw.%20Weltanschauung%20handelt.%20Und%20fraglich%20ist%2C%20ob%20die%20Scientology-Lehren%20von%20der%20Organisation%20nur%20als%20Vorwand%20f%C3%BCr%20eine%20ausschlie%C3%9Flich%20wirtschaftliche%20Zielsetzung%20benutzt%20werden.%20Dies%20w%C3%BCrde%20nach%20%C3%BCberwiegender%20Auffassung%20zum%20Ausschluss%20des%20Schutzes%20durch%20Art.%204%20GG%20f%C3%BChren. A more readable translation was provided in the section above. Let's please put this right again and move on. Cheers, -- JN 466  18:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus. I will detail it soon. Wispanow (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is clearly no consensus with you, Wispanow, but there is a source, a document written by the German parliament's Scientific Services Division, summing up the present situation, and it says what it says. Have you read it? The very question whether Scientology is a religion is contested, and if it should turn out that it isn't a religion, but just a scam (cf. the French court judgment), then it will not be protected by Article 4. For example,
 * the Federal Labor Court ruled in 1995 that the Scientology branch in Hamburg was not a religious congregation, but clearly a commercial enterprise. (Der Spiegel).
 * ""Scientology Kirche Hamburg e.V." ist keine Religions- oder Weltanschauungsgemeinschaft im Sinne der Art. 4, 140 GG, Art. 137 WRV." (Decision by the Bundesarbeitsgericht [Federal Labour Court]: The Hamburg Church of Scientology is not a religious or worldview community within the meaning of Articles 4, 140 of the Basic Law ...) -- JN 466  12:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would only add as clarification that it isn't so much whether Scientology is found to be a "scam", but whether the German government decides whether Scientology specifically qualifies under protection as per their constitution. Not all groups that claim to be religious are counted as such by the German government. This really has nothing to do with what Scientology, in some objective sense, may or may not be, but is rather dependent on what the German government says about it and how they decide to treat it, specifically, whether they choose to see it as a religion whose rights are covered by the constitution or as something which does not merit such protection. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Arb Comment
The notice at the top of the page states "[you must] edit only through a conventional internet service provider and not through any form of proxy configuration". Doesn't this go against everything that Wikipedia stands for? Is this just Wiki bullshit created so that if anyone writes anything bad about the Scientology cult then they can hold the original writer responsible rather than the Wiki foundation if Scientology and its bags of gold go to the courts? A NPOV encyclopedia should not be giving in to big money corporations like this. It should allow the truth to be told about this cult but it seems that Wikipedia would sooner forgo the truth when it suits them.--Xania talk 00:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually there has been a large amount of socking going on from accounts operated from computers owned by Scientology. Cirt (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually, that was added to ensure that accounts which were found to be operated from IPs owned or affiliated with the Church of Scientology itself were not abusively used, considering that there was a real and I think reasonable concern they may have been acting in some way to make the content more sympathetic or profitable to them, not the other way around. John Carter (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Omission
The Peoples Republic of China isn't listed? why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.196.234 (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Russia bans writings by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard
Sources, for info to add to this article. -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ecuador
Scientology was recognized as a religion in Ecuador in 1997.

Costa Rica
Scientology was recognized as a religion in Costa Rica in 1991.

Brazil
In September 2004, the Church of Scientology Mission of Brazil was registered by the Ministry of Justice in Brazil as a religious association.

Philippines
Scientology was recognized as a religion in the Philippines in 2003.

India
Scientology was recognized as a religion in India in 2003.

Nepal
Scientology was recognized as a religion in Nepal in 2004.

Tanzania
Scientology was recognized as a religion in Tanzania in 2004.

Sri Lanka
The Church of Scientology was registered as a religion in Sri Lanka in 2006.

Reference

Freeszaniszlo (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Germany
@Jayen466: Please do not remove the POV-Tags until the points are solved. Wispanow (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Why not translate it correctly? It is nearly finally solved, but not finally, because Scientology did not go to the highest courts.
 * 2) Why list the unimportant, not solved things?
 * 3) Why not describing the actual situation? That scientology is operating nearly unaffected since 1970?


 * First of all, the present content of this section was established by user:John_Carter, not me. "Nicht abschließend geklärt" simply means "not finally resolved". It certainly does not mean "nearly finally resolved". As long as you have one court finding it is a business, and another finding it is not a business, the matter is not resolved. (And German courts are not in a hurry to resolve it either.) Few states in the world are as active against Scientology as the German one. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

STATUS IN GERMANY
This is an official statement from the Church of Scientology regarding Germany, what they can usually back up with evidences (scans of the court rulings or other documents) if requested:

The German Courts have recognized Scientology's religious bona fides in over 40 cases.

On 12 December 2003, the Administrative Court of Appeal of Baden-Württemberg determined that the Church of Scientology Stuttgart is a religious organization protected under the German Constitution. The Administrative Court of Appeal also found no evidence whatsoever to support the government's allegation concerning commercial activity.

The Court held that "on the basis of recent scientific examinations that deal with the aims of the Scientology organization, there are no tangible indications that support the allegation that the teachings of Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard are used as mere pretence for a commercial activity."

Likewise, in November 1997, the German Federal Supreme Administrative Court issued a landmark ruling that the services of Scientology are spiritual in nature and do not have a commercial basis. The case concerned Baden-Württemberg's attempt to have a Scientology mission de-registered on the grounds that it was in violation of its statutes and engaged in commercial, not religious activity. The government subsequently withdrew its case and, on the court's order, paid the Church's costs. In October 2002, the Federal Labor Court ruled that staff members who work in a Church of Scientology are motivated by idealistic and spiritual aims. In reaching its decision, the Court relied on the landmark, 1997 decision by the German Federal Supreme Administrative Court finding that Scientology's religious practices are intended for spiritual gain and serve a religious purpose.

Also in October 2002, in a precedent-setting decision that the government decided not to appeal, the German Federal Tax Court in Cologne ruled that two Church of Scientology corporations headquartered in Los Angeles are exempt from tax in Germany. Ruling that these organizations qualify under the 1989 Income Tax Treaty between the United States and Germany, the Court overturned the German Federal Tax Office's May 1996 denial of their exemption applications.

Following the Tax Court ruling, in January 2003, the Federal Finance Office in Germany: 1) issued letters granting tax exemption to SMI with respect to payments of license fees to Scientology Missions International from thee Scientology Missions of Karlsruhe, Ulm, Wiesbaden and Göppingen.; and 2) issued letters granting tax exemption to the Church of Scientology International (CSI), the Mother Church of the Scientology religion, with respect to license payments it receives from nine Churches of Scientology in Germany.

On March 23, 2004, the Church of Scientology Düsseldorf received official registration as an idealistic association from the District Court Düsseldorf. In June 2004, the Hamburg State Administrative Court of Appeal determined that actions taken by the Hamburg government to discriminate against a Scientologist interfered with her right to religious freedom protected by Article 4 of the German Constitution. The Court's decision represents a clear affirmation of the religious rights of members of the Church of Scientology: "Thus it has been established that the plaintiff not only professes alone for herself a personal, individual, religious or philosophic belief, but shares this in community with others and thereby obtains the protection of Article 4 [freedom of religion or belief] of the Constitution."

Freeszaniszlo (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Germany Seeks to Ban Scientology


This source info should be mentioned in the article. Cirt 10:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC).


 * I think it might be wise to wait until something further comes of this. A german official stating they want a ban on Scientology is not really news.  Some German official or another usually says this every 6 months or so.  The only reason this one was news was because it was a slow news day.  If something official comes out of this like hearings or something then I'd say we should add that info. Elhector 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: -- "I think it might be wise to wait until something further comes of this." Something further has come of this.  See second cite, added above.  Thanks.  Cirt (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
 * See third source, separate news service, Reuters. Cirt (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Took a look at the 3rd reference. Looks like this is heating up and has become more than notable now so I went ahead added it to the article. Elhector (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The reality is this:
The German Courts have recognized Scientology's religious bona fides in over 40 cases.

On 12 December 2003, the Administrative Court of Appeal of Baden-Württemberg determined that the Church of Scientology Stuttgart is a religious organization protected under the German Constitution. The Administrative Court of Appeal also found no evidence whatsoever to support the government's allegation concerning commercial activity.

The Court held that "on the basis of recent scientific examinations that deal with the aims of the Scientology organization, there are no tangible indications that support the allegation that the teachings of Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard are used as mere pretence for a commercial activity."

Likewise, in November 1997, the German Federal Supreme Administrative Court issued a landmark ruling that the services of Scientology are spiritual in nature and do not have a commercial basis. The case concerned Baden-Württemberg's attempt to have a Scientology mission de-registered on the grounds that it was in violation of its statutes and engaged in commercial, not religious activity. The government subsequently withdrew its case and, on the court's order, paid the Church's costs. In October 2002, the Federal Labor Court ruled that staff members who work in a Church of Scientology are motivated by idealistic and spiritual aims. In reaching its decision, the Court relied on the landmark, 1997 decision by the German Federal Supreme Administrative Court finding that Scientology's religious practices are intended for spiritual gain and serve a religious purpose.

Also in October 2002, in a precedent-setting decision that the government decided not to appeal, the German Federal Tax Court in Cologne ruled that two Church of Scientology corporations headquartered in Los Angeles are exempt from tax in Germany. Ruling that these organizations qualify under the 1989 Income Tax Treaty between the United States and Germany, the Court overturned the German Federal Tax Office's May 1996 denial of their exemption applications.

Following the Tax Court ruling, in January 2003, the Federal Finance Office in Germany: 1) issued letters granting tax exemption to SMI with respect to payments of license fees to Scientology Missions International from thee Scientology Missions of Karlsruhe, Ulm, Wiesbaden and Göppingen.; and 2) issued letters granting tax exemption to the Church of Scientology International (CSI), the Mother Church of the Scientology religion, with respect to license payments it receives from nine Churches of Scientology in Germany.

On March 23, 2004, the Church of Scientology Düsseldorf received official registration as an idealistic association from the District Court Düsseldorf. In June 2004, the Hamburg State Administrative Court of Appeal determined that actions taken by the Hamburg government to discriminate against a Scientologist interfered with her right to religious freedom protected by Article 4 of the German Constitution. The Court's decision represents a clear affirmation of the religious rights of members of the Church of Scientology: "Thus it has been established that the plaintiff not only professes alone for herself a personal, individual, religious or philosophic belief, but shares this in community with others and thereby obtains the protection of Article 4 [freedom of religion or belief] of the Constitution."

Reference

Freeszaniszlo (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Colours
I am not familiar enough with the software to fix this, but I think the boxes should be in neutral colours, such as yellow or blue. Indeed there should be a third colour as there are in fact three legal statuses: recognised as a religion, recognised as a cult, or neither recognised as a cult nor a religion. Having them green and red makes it seem like some kind of human rights issue (tick all the countries green), when in fact it is more complicated. Zeth (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the red to blue. RapsK (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Table for country status
I added the status by country table for United Kingdom about the recent marriage in orgs ruling. I added a reference to a Reuters article but unwillingly I messed up the reference following mine, number 58. I don't know how to fix this, please help.


 * I have removed the source you added; Jayen446 had added more content on the same subject, with a different source. The reason your source interfered with the other one was that you had given it the same name. If a source isn't used more than once there's no need to use the "name=" parameter for the tag at all. Huon (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Once the bulk of the info is cleared out to the individual country articles I would like to see a table as shown below used for the remaining info.
 * This sounds like a good idea. Ideally with one or two inline-citations supporting each entry. Cirt (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is no related country article any info would certainly need refs but if the status is a summary of what is in the linked article no refs would be needed since they would be in the article itself. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, actually it needs to be duly cited here on this article as well. Cirt (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(InBeforeClose) There is no reliable source that it is recognized as a religious non-profit organization in Canada. AndroidCat (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the above statement on Canada was overconfident, given the sources.  JN  466  06:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no need for repetition of refs. See WP:SS. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. Per SS: There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point. The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. Cirt (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually WP:SS may be more applicable to sections of articles rather than lists such as this one. Feel free to revert my edit but I think that the link in the "Further information" can be treated as the reference. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's circular reasoning. The references should be in-line cites that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't see the, aah, reasoning for the circular reasoning. :-) WP:RS and WP:V is satisfied because refs are in the associated article. There is no point having duplication of refs. This situation is a bit like WP:LEADCITE. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all like WP:LEADCITE, rather, more like citing Wikipedia itself as a source, wholly inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Citing is not the same as summarising. The summarisation on this page is (or should be) fully referenced at the main article. By your reasoning WP:LEADCITE and WP:SS would not be permitted unless they were referenced. There is NO WAY that the summary in this page is citing WP. It is a summary of the referenced article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference with WP:LEADCITE, is that the references are on the same page. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But note that WP:SS states "[t]here is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point." But does WP:SS and WP:LEADCITE apply to a list such as this?? Anyway, picking out the nuances of WP guidelines is not necessary since this sort of stuff is done on a consensus - which is best done with more than two editors. If the summary is not up to scratch it can always be given a suitable tag. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Per SS: There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point. The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. = bolded the relevant portions that must be adhered to in this article. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cirt. In this contentious topic area, anything is likely to be challenged.  JN 466  22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

United States
Someone should re-write this line... as the way it is said in the source is not the same as in the article. The United States does not recognize any religion, for any purpose, outside of some non-binding resolutions that have passed Congress. For tax purposes, all religious bodies are recognized on as the same status as any non-profit organization. But besides that, it just isn't accurate about what the article says. Someone please re-phrase it in a more accurate manner, if possible. 68.227.167.123 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Religions are recognized in a number of ways in the United States:


 * 1) Tax status, which you have noted
 * 2) Wedding officiation
 * 3) Conscientious objection from military service
 * 4) Ministerial exemption from military service
 * 5) Exemptions for rituals
 * 6) Exemptions for claims


 * As far as I know, Scientology is recognized as a religion in all those above except #3 and #4, which have maybe never been contested or decided in a court. #5 and #6 were decided on the E-meter page.  I agree that the Constitution does not provide any mechanism by which the US Government awards or denies religious status, and there is no government registry that keeps a master list of award winners.  Nevertheless, these above are some powerful and much-coveted forms by which the US Government recognizes religion, and there may be others. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Choice of colours
Usually in cases like this green would indicate success, red would indicate failure. Here, red indicates they have succeeded in being recognised as a religion, green indicates they have failed.

Seems pretty biased to me. -- Smurfy 02:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, having green as the indicator for "banned" or "unrecognised" is biased against scientology. It should be blue, yellow, and purple or some other "non-stance-taking" colour. In fact, I'm going to change it. Caseykcole (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

...ok I don't know how to :D But even in the edit page - the colours are under "yes" (green) "no" (red) and "depends" (amber). This needs attention. If anyone defends the current situation by saying that wikipedia shouldn't pander to either side - then, exactly - change all the colours to neutral. Caseykcole (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You can try to change the "yes2" to "no2" and the "no2" to "yes2" in the text. Here is the reference. - Freeszaniszlo (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we use yellow for success and purple for failure ? That would seem perfectly neutral. --Anthem of joy (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I did just that, but I got reverted by an admin claiming there was no talk about this before. --79.223.45.209 (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scientology status by country. 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/20060813194020/http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html to http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080312021507/http://www.thevarsity.ca/article/1293 to http://www.thevarsity.ca/article/1293
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226104617/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-V0Ui506lPl-r8ImubpdUjFbuYA to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-V0Ui506lPl-r8ImubpdUjFbuYA

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Scientology status by country. 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/20110125055319/http://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/analysen/2007/Rechtliche_Fragen_zu_Religions-_und_Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften.pdf to http://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/analysen/2007/Rechtliche_Fragen_zu_Religions-_und_Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yLc3T9Xn?url=http://www.sptimes.com/News/32999/Worldandnation/Abroad__Critics_publi.html to http://www.sptimes.com/News/32999/Worldandnation/Abroad__Critics_publi.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101006233735/http://religionandpolicy.org/show.php?p=1.1.1246 to http://www.religionandpolicy.org/show.php?p=1.1.1246
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220201411/http://www.scientology-fakten.ch/de/richtigstellung-von-falschinformationen/religion/49-rechtlicheanerkennungch.html to http://www.scientology-fakten.ch/de/richtigstellung-von-falschinformationen/religion/49-rechtlicheanerkennungch.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Chile
The only source for the assertion that "Scientology is considered a cult" by Chile is an interview with a Scientologist actor, who claims that Scientologists are persecuted in Chile. Because this actor is a Scientologist himself, he is a biased source and we should not be taking his statements as facts. Also, it seemed like he was commenting on the public perception of Scientology rather than its legal status (which is what this article is about). SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 09:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Scientology and South Africa
The sections where Scientology is referred to South Africa need work.

Introduction states that: "The Church of Scientology has been recognized as a religious denomination in its home country, the United States,[2][3] and has received full recognition in various other countries such as Italy,[4][5] South Africa,[6]...."

This is misleading. In the context of this article and others on Scientology, it implies that the South African government has issued a proclamation recognising (or alternatively, not recognising) Scientology as a religion, as in Germany. Itdoes no such thing. The "evidence" supplied is a letter granting marriage officer status to the CoS. This is not hard to get - Rastas, Wiccans, have them too.

In fact the SA government and its branches stays well away from declaring any belief system to eb a "religion", "sect", or "cult", which can be seen in several religious freedom cases in the Constitutional Court.

In the table, it states that: "In 1975, Scientology was recognized as a non-profit organization in South Africa, despite the 1972 report of a formal government Commission of Inquiry that recommended otherwise.[47] In April 2000, Scientology ministers were granted the right to perform marriages.[6] In December 2007, South Africa granted a certificate to the Church recognizing it as a "Public Benefit Organisation".[48]

Links 47 and 48 are broken and suggest [47] be replaced with http://www.solitarytrees.net/pubs/kotze/index.htm

This should be expanded and/or revised as the reader without sufficient information on South Africa's history could believe the governments initial refusal was based on defendable grounds, but undue weight was given to Christianity in evaluating CoS doctrine. (see chapter 13 of Kotze report at above link.) amongst other reasons. This is not surprising, as the Cosntitution referred to above did not exist then and only Christianity and to a limited extent, Judaism, were given any sort of protected status by the apartheid government. Other religions, like Islam, were present but no legal rights flowed from Islamic marriage and if a husband died intestate, his estate would be wound up as if he weren't married, for example. The report isn,t surprising; going against teh recommendations is and a reason (must be some hypothesising from a reputable and verifiable soruce) would be helpful.

Argentina
Hello! I don't know about sourcing in Wikipedia, but the first reference links to a dead website (at least on my end) (https://www.culto.gov.ar/) and the second one is just a scientology website (https://www.scientology-buenosaires.org/).
 * Thanks Walyso. I replaced the link with its archive copy (found via web.archive.org). It appears to be a defunct Argentine government website - the National Registry of Cults. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 18:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Context of "religion" determination
I think that some info usefult to include where possible is the context / details of the determination as a religion in a country. For example, in the US, the context might be the IRS classification regarding taxing status. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistentes between map and list in article.
The map shows Argentina as dark green. (Countries which recognize Scientology as a religion).

However, the list says that in Argentina, Scientology's status is "No known recognition as a religion. As of 2012 it was officially recognised as a cult."

If it is not recognized as a religion in Argentina, then why is it recognized as a religion on the map?

Why is it not orange? (Countries where Scientology is considered a cult.)

The list says Argentina considers Scientology a cult as of 2012, so why does the map not match the list?

Can someone plz sort this out, the list and the map both cant be right seeing as they say almost the exact opposite things? Randitor (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Update to the map/list Inconsistency. User Cambial Yellowing  has removed the inaccurate map. This is a good temp solution, but I think it's a good idea to get a more accurate map in the future. Randitor (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions

 * 1) There is no key (nor any explanation) for the three colors used in the table. Does anyone know what they are (or were) supposed to represent?
 * 2) Is there any reason this is a table instead of simple paragraphs with a heading for each country (maybe grouped by continent like on so many similiar pages)? Headings would give us a table of contents and make it easier for readers to navigate.
 * 3) An editor has been slowly excising content from this article as if "charitable status" or other status information is unimportant — in favor of solely keeping content if there is a definitive "legal recognition". Does anyone else feel this article should be narrowed to that definition?

Grorp (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The question of whether it is a “religion or otherwise” has been the focus of the article since at least 2015, and is established in the opening sentences of the article, then and in the current version. It’s a reasonable focus for the article to take. I believe the colours are supposed to represent whether or not it has received some form of legal recognition as a religion; an explanatory text to that effect would be useful.<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 10:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Taken literally, the title is so broad/vague that it could include anything about Scientology anywhere. I think that the implicit and useful scope is legal status with respect to being / not being treated as a religion and any other noteworthy legal status (such as being considered to be a cult) I think that "tax exempt" status alone is meaningless at best for this article and actually misleading in the context of this article. Chess clubs and political parties have also that status. IMO "Tax exempt due to being treated as a religion" is meaningful for this article. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Strategy section, para 2
You might as well finish off paragraph 2 under 'Strategy' by deleting it entirely as it now sits awkwardly non sequitur after these three edits. I was trying to use the concepts from Halupka about how favorable public perception, or perceptions from other areas/countries, can have the effect of swaying decisions elsewhere, and his concept of 'any inroad of one advances the goal of the other' (now deleted). Para 2 was a part of the concept of CoS using 'perception management' in pursuing the goal of becoming deemed a 'mainstream religion'. One example was the English court using a USA and an Australian legal decision (now half deleted). The other example was the USA pressuring Germany (extant). Both citations were already in use in the article before I started my edits, so I wasn't inserting anything new, and everything was based off my reading of Halupka.

Is there some better way to rephrase the 'Strategy' section (because the way it sits now, para 2 is irrelevant)? I'm not even attached to the section title. Thoughts and ideas? Grorp (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Using primary sources needs great care, and legal sources even more so. We cannot interpret in any way, and thus cannot determine them to be evidence of a hypothesised trend. Inserting content based off [your] reading of a source, but not explicitly stated by it, is original research.
 * On the interpretation: the 1979 US case is one involving a branch of the Transcendental Meditation movement, not Scientology, so prima facie does not support your idea. Both that and the Australian case are clearly obiter, not swaying the actual decision.
 * We should use secondary sources. There is some more coverage in Richardson in Lewis 2009 “Scientology in Court” <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 13:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming you mean the book Scientology by James R Lewis, Chapter 14: Scientology in Court: A look at some major cases from various nations by James T Richardson. Our library doesn't have it and Google books would only serve up pages 283, 284, 286, 293 & 294... but that chapter looks promising. You wouldn't happen to have a copy of the other pages of Chapter 14 you could send my way? Or maybe it's available through Wikipedia Library basic collections somewhere? Grorp (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)