Talk:Anderson Report

Source for this article

The Google News Archive has an extensive archive of the Australian newspaper The Age. See for example Federal Action likely on Scientology from October 7, 1965. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved Drg55's edits to Church of the New Faith page

I have moved Drg55's recent edits to the Church of the New Faith page. I made some modifications to streamline it within the text, but the ideas and most of the form are Drg55's. Appropriate credit was given within the edit summary.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I thank you for doing this. In regard to WP Synth the rule gives an example on the UN and wars where synth is used to give one opinion which could be grammatically rephrased to give another. But what if things are factual, and if the role of the Anderson Report was to say "Scientology is not a religion and does not claim to be" and then the Report contradicts itself in another section by giving a value judgement of Scientology theology against Judaeo-Christian beliefs (how most people view other religions, they compare them against their own "true" beliefs). In the recent Pistorius case in South Africa, it was of vital relevance that the prosecuting police officer was himself facing murder charges, and he was taken off the case. And in the history of Scientology in Australia, the work to improve the rights of the citizen against psychiatric seizure and damaging treatments was instrumental in the reversal of the Anderson injustices. And by extension the extreme and damaging treatments which were found to have been used by Dax, the head of Government psychiatry who introduced a new "modified" leucotomy (lobotomy) technique when he was hired from the UK, which was used on over 300 Victorians during the time period of Scientology expansion and the Inquiry (1957-63); and also Sinclair one of the most prominent psychiatrists in this corner of the planet was using deep sleep therapy and killed at least one patient with it. But this is not synth as it is history: synth is an interpretation, this is fact. And surely the public would want to know what is the status of Scientology in Victoria where this vile document was written. The fact that Scientology is booming is relevant for those who think the Anderson Report has any currency. Finally, there are no rules WP:IGNORE except the principle of a well sourced neutral point of view encyclopedia. Frankly, from my point of view quite a bit of the time extreme opinions that violate WP:RS consist of the bulk of articles about Scientology and mostly when I try to balance it with other data that gets the chop. However I am keeping Anonymous informed as you can see from the page view statistics, so I'll keep at this. And as we go along we do make some progress here and there.Drg55 (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Drg, your above paragraph doesn't have a clear point and appears to not understand synthesizing original research using two separate sources. The point of WP:SYNTH is that if you take reliable source A which has something to do with the article but mentions sub-point B, and then take reliable source B which mentions sub-point B and then expands on point C but doesn't have anything to do with the topic of the article, you can't insert point C material into the article. If there isn't a reliable source that puts point C and the article topic together then you are engaged in WP:OR even though you have used reliable sources.

For example the source mentioned that 75 million years ago, the galactic warlord Xenu shipped aliens to the volcanoes of Hawaii and destroyed using H bombs. Scientists, then and today, agree that at that time there was no Hawaii. More importantly Hawaii which wasn't part of the main landmasses of that time didn't "drift" into existence from a main landmass but rather emerged from the seabed and at this time the volcanoes that formed Hawaii didn't exist at all. However I am not allowed to go to any Scientology page and bring WP:RS to say that "while L. Ron Hubbard stated that there were volcanoes in Hawaii at this time, this has been proven incorrect and there was no possibility of the Xenu story actually happening." I am also not allowed to take the reliable sources that talk about L. Ron Hubbards abuse of psychiatric medication into the page on Scientology and psychiatry, even though it is fact and history, because there isn't a reliable source that puts those two pieces together. These are actual examples of other sections I have deleted due to WP:SYNTH.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess you would also delete if I wrote that the OT levels are to do with spiritual perceptions and that what materialists such as skeptics regard as actuality is illusion. However its not synth if I put in the background of the attackers at the Anderson Inquiry, or original research because historically these facts were released. But, if I were to evaluate the effect of those actions that would be original research.

I've been a bit quiet this week because I went down to town to research a better document for you, I made some progress but still don't have the actual transcripts I was looking for. And I have also contacted Church authorities to see if they could help me with some facts for another page, not because the church wants it but because I find it personally offensive. And then there is another edit that requires me to do quite a bit of reading and its just a matter of getting around to it.Drg55 (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

if by "putting the background in" you mean "dead agenting" then yes, that is original research because you will be introducing a enthymatic argument independent of the Anderson Report, and as such it isn't encyclopedic. Best to stick to the specific context surrounding the report.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Anderson Report/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*14 citations, could use an image... Smee 21:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 21:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anderson Report. 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/20030930092722/http://lisatrust.freewinds.cx:80/legal/snowwhite/docs.htm to http://lisatrust.freewinds.cx/legal/snowwhite/docs.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060917102714/http://www.humanrights.gov.au///pdf/human_rights/religion/article_18_religious_freedom.pdf to http://www.humanrights.gov.au/pdf/human_rights/religion/article_18_religious_freedom.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)