Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/The Hole (Scientology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JoannaSerah (talk | contribs) at 19:16, 17 February 2013 (Added a review.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Hole (Scientology)

Aerial view of The Hole

  • ... that dozens of top Church of Scientology executives have reportedly been confined to The Hole (pictured), where they beat and humiliated each other for months or years at a time?

Created by Prioryman (talk). Self nom at 23:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Note to closer: could this nomination please be held either to Tuesday 29 or Weds 30th? (I'll update the timing when I know exactly which day). Prioryman (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm doing a bit more work on it and need the time to make some edits. It looks like Tuesday will be fine (I'll be done shortly). I didn't want it to appear before it was ready. Prioryman (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm happy with it now. (I've just read a new book that covers the subject of the article and wanted to make sure it was reflected or at least that it doesn't contradict anything I've written. Which it doesn't, thankfully.) I'm happy now for the article to be promoted. Prioryman (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think "where they beat ... each other for months or years at a time" is an exaggeration and paints a false picture of what went on there., I think something like "confined for months or years at a time and subject to demeaning living conditions and intrusive group interrogations." I see the physical stuff as very sporadic and not worthy of the generalization in the original hook. --Lyncs (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It really depends on how the references word it. This isn't a generalization if the sources say it like that. For that matter, do the sources use the wording "demeaning living conditions and intrusive group interrogations"? If not, then that would be WP:OR. SilverserenC 11:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, but I do not believe that the source says "beat and humiliated each other for months or years at a time", either. The primary source says "They lived in degrading conditions" and were hounded for "lurid confessions" - not far from my suggestion. My revised suggestion, which also clarifies that they did leave from time-to-time "... that dozens of top Church of Scientology executives have reportedly been relegated to The Hole (pictured) for months and years at a time, where their movements were restricted and they were subjected to demeaning living conditions and humiliating group interrogations which often included physical violence."? --Lyncs (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That's plainly not going to work; there's a 200 character limit, and your hook is more than 50% longer than that. Prioryman (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Then something like ALT1: "... that dozens of top Church of Scientology executives have reportedly been confined to The Hole (pictured), where they were subjected to humiliating group interrogations and physical violence?" I think that is more consistent with the source and "confined" implies a length of time - the reader can learn more in the article. --Lyncs (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That works better - thanks. Prioryman (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have raised serious concerns regarding the overall neutrality of the article at AE. Anyone reviewing this nomination should consider those concerns.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Your concerns are unfounded and reflect a lack of understanding of the subject matter. Prioryman (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The AE report has been closed with no action taken. And since this nomination was already approved with ALT1, I don't even think another review is necessary. Can this be added to the queue, please? SilverserenC 03:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Actually, ALT1 has not been approved: it was proposed by Lyncs, and Prioryman (who is the article's creator) said it was okay with him, so it is not ready for promotion until it has been reviewed and approved by someone new. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • As another reviewer, I think Alt1 does seem interesting. QPQ done. Hook length OK and is cited in the article appropriately. Not able to check some of the refs that are offline, but those don't apply to the hook, so assuming good faith there. I just have two issues. One, several of the Tampa Bay Times refs are dead links now. Need to be updated. Second (and I don't know if this prevents a DYK?), the article is close to being a collection of quotes (He stated "this" and she stated "this," etc.). You have some good prose there, and I know you want to be careful with the neutrality of the article, but it probably could do with some more paraphrasing/rewording. My main concern is the dead links. If that is fixed, I would consider approving. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)