Wikipedia

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

< Template:Did you know nominations
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of The Hole (Scientology)'s DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Orlady (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC).

The Hole (Scientology)

edit
(
)

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)
  • Upon rereading this, suggest ALT2: "... 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 punishment?" as more descriptive and more consistent with sources and article. --Lyncs (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a fairly minor change but sure, I don't mind that. Let's leave it up to the closer's discretion as to whether ALT1 or ALT2 is used. Prioryman (talk) 23:07, 18 February 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)
  • It seems that the Tampa Bay Times has changed its linking format throughout its site, probably within only the last few days, as the old links are still in the Google cache. Most annoying. I've updated all those links and they are now all working.[1] Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Now that the dead links are fixed, I am not really overly concerned about amount of quotes there. Just really a cautionary note. Looks good for DYK. Alt1 approved. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Seren, the AE report did not concern Prioryman explicitly as it was an appeal of another editor's sanction so "no action" resulting from that report has no bearing on anything. The article is littered with issues that I laid out in that AE case and I would be more than willing to note those issues again here. I think this article would have to undergo a massive overhaul to be appropriate for DYK.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Let me just point out something to you. Since I wrote the article nearly three weeks ago it has been viewed nearly 160,000 times.[2] It has received up to 94 ratings. The ratings, each out of 5, are currently as follows: Trustworthy - 4.8 (94 ratings); Objective 4.6 (83 ratings); Complete 4.6 (80 ratings); Well-written 4.7 (93 ratings). This article has had vastly more public exposure than even most featured articles. There was not a single featured article in January that got more than 74,000 page views.[3] My article got 103,243 page views in one day. And yet, despite your comments, you are almost the only person to have found fault with the article (the first was the editor whose topic ban was upheld in AE). If the article is so bad, why do you think none of the people who contributed those 160,000 views have expressed any concern, and why are the article's quality ratings so high? Prioryman (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Surely you know that most readers don't check Wikipedia for its veracity and given the amount of negative press about Scientology it is natural that people may not recognize a slanted portrayal when they see one. Recent events tell us that even GA and FA reviewers have trouble recognizing when subjects are altogether fabricated, so I fail to see why we should give any weight to the number of views an article gets.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Let me put it even more simply then. The issues you raised on AE and on the Wikipediocracy troll forum are wrong. They are naive and reflect a lack of understanding of the subject. I can honestly claim to be a genuine subject matter expert, and I asked several other experts to review the article, including Larry Wright, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist whose description of the Hole I draw on in this article, and Mike Rinder, who was actually there. Larry thought it was an excellent piece of work. Mike thought it was "accurate, even conservative". I have since heard from other people who were either there or on the base at the time and they have unanimously commended the article. Apart from the topic-banned NestleNW911, you are literally the only person who seems to think it is a bad article. My point in highlighting the number of views is that the article has already had a huge amount of public exposure but has prompted no dissenting comments whatsoever, except from you. You have not engaged with the article in any way and your postings to AE were effectively a hit-and-run job with no followup.[4][5] You have not bothered to substantiate anything you have argued. This is coming across to me as obstructionism, quite honestly. Prioryman (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for linking to my statement. I was planning on doing that myself to simplify matters. You claim the issues I raised are wrong, but have failed to say what is wrong about them. A large portion of the article is devoted to listing alleged abuses by the Church that have no clear connection to The Hole, including the "musical chairs" incident, which gets its own section. In the first section an apparently anti-cult writer is cited to support mentioning a comparison of some unrelated group in Scientology to Communist China. I am not sure why you think people who have criticized Scientology having positive things to say about this article should be seen as compelling.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Let me list what's wrong. The "musical chairs" incident took place in The Hole, although it wasn't called that then. The so-called "anti-cult writer" is Professor Stephen A. Kent, a recognised and awarded expert on new religious movements such as Scientology, on which he has written extensively. The "people who have criticized Scientology" that you refer to are (a) Lawrence Wright, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer who has spent the last five years researching Scientology for a book that got to #3 on the New York Times bestseller list [6] and has been pretty much unanimously praised and (b) Mike Rinder, formerly one of the most senior officials in the Church of Scientology and someone who was actually in The Hole for an extended period; he still practises Scientology, so he is not in any way an anti-Scientologist. Additionally, the main sources for the article are the Tampa Bay Times, a newspaper which has won the Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on Scientology, and two of its senior writers, who have individually won prizes for their reporting on Scientology, including some of the articles I quoted. In short, these are people who are literally the very best writers on the topic - you can't get better than a Pulitzer Prize. And you know, somehow I would prefer to put my trust in Pulitzer Prize-winners, academic experts and senior officials with first-hand knowledge, rather than some anonymous individual from Wikipediocracy. Prioryman (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • That it took place in the same building is nice, but until I brought it up you provided no indication of this. I still fail to see how the first two paragraphs of that section pertain to The Hole or even the "musical chairs" incident. With the first section you again just have a large amount of material with no apparent connection to the subject. Kent may have won awards, but that he compared a group in Scientology to Communist China suggests he is not the most neutral of authors and the source is a book predating the time period where The Hole was allegedly being used in the manner the article describes so the reason for mentioning this comparison is unclear. If this article is about a facility at the headquarters then it should be about that facility. As it stands this article appears to be all about allegations of mistreatement, some not at The Hole and some not even at Gold Base, with numerous negative paragraphs about Miscavige with no clear connection to the subject. One of the claims in the "musical chairs" section provides a quote from a John Brousseau presenting negative allegations of Miscavige's actions, but the cited source does not appear to include any such quote and I am finding zero evidence that this quote was ever mentioned anywhere but this article and several newly-created mirror pages of this article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I concede that the musical chairs connection was not as clear as it should have been but I have fixed this. The first section is most definitely connected to the subject as it establishes the policies, practices, disciplinary processes, the whole system of "ecclesiastical justice" and so on, which were established and implemented in the 1960s and underlie what is going on today. I must say that I find it amusingly hypocritical that you people on the troll forum constantly complain about how Wikipedia treats experts badly, but here you are dismissing Professor Kent because you don't like what he says (and what is your own expertise, again?). The Brousseau quote is transcribed from a video interview which accompanied the linked article but seems to have disappeared from it, probably due to the Tampa Bay Times' recent site move which broke all the links from this article. I'll fix that. Your other points are just trolling, and frankly I don't feel like wasting any further time on you. Prioryman (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Devil's Advocate, I have read the Wiki article and I don't find anything that is inaccurate or is otherwise not supported with verifiable references. If you have specifics on what's wrong or mistaken or not true, I would like to see them. Please post a URL to your review, if you have one, on my Talk page. I expect I'll find that all of your concerns have already been addressed, though. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Ways to help make this a bit more neutral (although I tend to agree with your definition of Wikipediocracy, especially after one of them said if I wasn't a sock of an indeffed user who likes dick jokes when discussing my nomination of Sarah Stierch)
Avoid scarequotes on "imprisoned" or qualify it by saying the executives reported being "imprisoned" there.
are reported, is reported and the like are weasel words and should be attributed. "Reported by former detainees" and the like
(as a 1960s Scientology magazine put it, "No one can fool a Sea Org Ethics Officer. He knows who's ethics bait."[4]). - Rather irrelevant
which has been compared to the "Re-education through labor" system in Communist China. - By whom?
According to an eyewitness" - Name, or as reported by?
And so on. I'm not going to review the whole thing like this, but you need to attribute these a bit better. Also, don't forget that citations go straight after direct quotes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I've significantly increased the density of the citations and added further attributions to make it clear who is stating or reporting a particular point, as well as addressing the other points that you've raised. Prioryman (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm... there are some places where I agree with Devil's Advocate. Everything in the paragraph starting "Defectors from the Church" seems unrelated to the subject at hand. Also, terms like "the Church did admit" are inherently POV. Be careful with how you treat them, as we are to follow WP:NPOV to the letter. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The paragraph starting "Defectors from the Church" is directly related to everything that follows. It establishes when relations between Miscavige and the executives started to break down (2003) and why (he blamed them for screwing up). It establishes that he started to treat them increasingly harshly (rants at meetings, abusive messages). It establishes the first use of the building that became The Hole as a punishment facility (the musical chairs incident). It establishes that The Hole was set up in the course of a large-scale purge that saw junior people moved out and senior people sent to The Hole. Without any of that background, we have no explanation of why The Hole was set up in the first place. That's an absolutely essential part of the story, and I'm not going to remove it from the article, otherwise we have a huge and unexplained gap. Regarding "the Church did admit", that directly reflects the source; "Davis admitted that the musical chairs episode occurred" (from Wright). It's a statement on the record from Davis, Scientology's chief spokesman, to Wright, his editor, the editor of The New Yorker, the head of The New Yorker's fact-checking department, The New Yorker's head lawyer and two fact-checkers from The New Yorker. It's as official as you can get. Prioryman (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The writer of the source has a POV. We are not allowed to. "Admit" infers that there was some wrong doing, which is not neutral. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • That's a fair point, I guess. I've gone through the article and changed three "admits" to "acknowledges" or "said". Prioryman (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm more or less convinced that this is acceptable for the main page. There may be some POV remaining (with a subject like this, there always is; cutting back on the number of quotes would help a bit in this regard), and I fixed a dab link, but it's in line with our most basic policies and the DYK guidelines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm here because I saw this (soon self-reverted) go by in my watchlist and got curious. I have to say that I don't think this is a good idea to mainpage, even if the phrasing is careful. The topic is hotly disputed, the neutrality of the sources is hotly disputed, the article's main author's intent/neutrality is hotly disputed, the hook has an obvious POV (which may or may not be reflective of reality's well-known bias)...frankly, I can see nothing positive coming from drawing more attention, from either the pro or anti camps, to the article using a punchy, emotive hook ("humiliating", etc) like the ones being proposed here. And given the subject matter of the article, there's really no way to write a hook that's not accusatory/emotive. DYK has a responsibility to not only fact-check the trees, but to also take a look at the forest - we should be considering not only "does the hook check out factually", but "is this a good hook" and "is this suitable for the main page" as well. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Fluffernutter, if the hook is a problem, can you suggest an alternative, then?
Regarding the potential controversiality, I would just repeat two points I made above in this discussion. First, the article has already had nearly 160,000 page views in the last 3 weeks [7]. That's far more exposure than even most featured articles get. If it was going to cause controversy, it would have done so by now. There have been no editing disputes. The only criticism has come from TDA here and a topic-banned editor. There have been an exceptional number of quality ratings at the bottom of the article; all are very high and have been going up steadily since I wrote it. Second, I took great care to get feedback from people mentioned in the article. They have been unanimously positive and eyewitnesses whom I have quoted have said that it is accurate. This article has twice been on the front page of Reddit in the course of two weeks so I would argue that it has already been very thoroughly "road-tested". Prioryman (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that I don't think there is currently a way to write a hook for this article that wouldn't be unnecessarily emotive. The subject matter is emotive - claims of abuse, etc - and because of the information gulf between pro- and anti-Scientology camps it would be extremely difficult to handle the topic in as even-handed a manner as we would do for any other "debated religious practice" article. The only sources writing about The Hole are writing about from an anti- (or at least outside-of-)Scientology point of view, because according to Scientology, The Hole as such doesn't exist. Now, this doesn't preclude writing an article about the topic - the denial in itself is a notable issue - but it does mean that any resultant article will be written based on sources that are, at the very least, disputed by some parties. Putting on Wikipedia's front page a hook claiming "humiliation" or other malfeasance perpetrated by CoS members against others is a step up from writing an article that describes the purported humiliation; BLP should be applied more carefully when it comes to the main page than it even is in mainspace. This puts an article like this in an awkward position: since Scientology won't comment on the "pro"-side, it's always going to be difficult or impossible to balance the POV aspects properly, especially with regard to BLP. Unfortunately, in my view, that's sort of the way we're stuck with things. If there's iffy content that can't be addressed from a neutral point of view because none of the sources do so, then until that content can be addressed neutrally we have to err on the side of conservatism.
As far as page hits and quality ratings, I'm not sure what bearing that has on the whether the article is suitable for the main page, especially since many of the incoming hits are almost certainly due to the article being linked to by prominent anti-Scientology bloggers and redditers. We'd all like to think that reader feedback and the opinions of the anti-Scientology parties cited in the article are entirely neutral, but if the audience has a POV, feedback will reflect that POV - and we know both Scientology and anti-Scientologists have powerful internet lobbies. I'm not saying the feedback is necessarily all inaccurate, but I am saying it's possible that it's giving you a skewed view of how "Wikipedia's policies" match up with "the opinion of The Internet At Large".
Or, to tl;dr an already-too-long statement: BLP (and to a lesser extent NPOV) require us to be extremely conservative as far as what we put on the main page, and I don't think it's possible to write a hook out of the current version of this article that is adequately conservative - no matter how many people like or dislike the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Fluff, I believe it is perfectly possible to create a balanced article on this subject, and create a neutral hook. However, as it stands this article would need some serious reworking to achieve balance. A number of the sources in the article do allow for a much more balanced portrayal than the article currently provides. It is just that this article has not been developed in anything resembling a neutral fashion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Fluffernutter, I disagree - I think alternative hooks are possible. I'll come up with a few ideas. As for the article, I think to be honest you are misunderstanding somewhat the requirements of BLP. From WP:BLPSTYLE: "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject". That does not mean that there must be equal space given for either side. In fact, that would not be possible, given that on the one hand you have very detailed eyewitness accounts and on the other hand you have flat denials. It would be a very short article - "Ex-members of the Church of Scientology say they were confined and abused in The Hole. The Church of Scientology denies it and says they are liars." There are a lot of eyewitness sources for this; Wright says that he has interviewed around 30 people with first-hand knowledge, of whom 12 were actually in The Hole or on the edges of what was going on there. The Tampa Bay Times interviewed others and one other person testified under oath in court. The amount of material I had to work with is very unequal, so inevitably there is going to be more about the very lengthy eyewitness accounts than about the very short denials. Are all the sources used in the article reliable? Yes, there is no dispute about that - the principal ones, Wright and the Tampa Bay Times, are very highly regarded. Are they treated in a non-partisan fashion? Yes, I think they are - I've made it clear at every point which claims are attributed to whom. Prioryman (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't mean "even handed" in the sense of "anti-Scientology gets two paragraphs, Scientology gets two paragraphs". I mean it in the sense that the article's sources address the topic from a perspective of 'heavy abuse is being committed', and the article follows suit by using colored language such as 'humiliating,' 'brutal', 'escape The Hole', 'severe', 'purge' etc. There are neutral, encylopedic ways to address issues that sources use such emotive language for - for instance, a more neutrally-phrased version of the article might describe a punishment in dispassionate terms and then add that '[Source] claimed he felt humiliated' or '[Citation] labels the treatment people receive as "brutal" ', rather than the article itself labeling the punishment as 'humiliating' or 'bruta' - but the current version of the article relies instead on the emotive descriptors as flat fact. It squeaks by the neutrality filter by relying on, as you point out, eminently reliable sources for the emotive language, but it is nevertheless too reliant on these colored terms to (in my opinion, which yes, is sometimes known to be over-conservative, so ymmv) be suited for the main page in its current state. Scientology is such a hot-button issue that we want to be very sure that anything we feature with regard to it is written not from a perspective of "look what Scientology's done now!", but from a perspective of "here are things reliable sources say about what Scientology is doing and how they're doing it; Wikipedia has no editorial opinion about any of this". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • @Crisco, It would definitely not be appropriate at this point. Looking further, it seems the source I mentioned being used to support a quote from Brousseau is being used to support a lot of quotes that aren't included in the source. Numerous quotes from Rinder are attributed to this source, but don't appear in the article. Prioryman stated that the Brousseau quote was from a video so perhaps that would be the case with those quotes as well, but until those BLP-sensitive quotes are appropriately sourced it would be a serious problem to put such an article on the main page. However, I would also say this article is so thoroughly non-neutral that it clearly fails the fourth criteria, specifically that "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." It is a large article so it would be long and time-consuming to point out every single issue, but I can say that there is an extensive use of negative quotations, with only a few comments sprinkled throughout the article that present the Church's official response. The "Life in The Hole" section quotes heavily from Rinder, Brousseau, Cook, and Rathbun. All of them are noted as "defectors" and outspoken critics of the Church. Out of ten paragraphs, only half of one paragraph in that section mentions the Church's response and nothing else is provided to moderate the tenor of the section. Most of those quotes should be paraphrased and summarized to reduce the negative glut of material.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • If it is in a video, and the page has moved, it's possible that the video was likewise moved (or deleted). Web archiving would not have helped, although if Prioryman saved the video someone could double check. I would prefer these quotes be reduced and paraphrased, as I mentioned above. As to the Church's response, we can only write what has been covered elsewhere. If you know of pro-Church material related to the subject, please feel free to add it to the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The video is still up on the Tampa Bay Times website. Unfortunately the Tampa Bay Times has split the video from the article (though the video is still accessible), so many of the references to source 1 should now go to the place where the video is now available. I can work through this and resolve it, though. As for the Church's official response, it is simply to deny everything and call the eyewitnesses liars. The brevity of the coverage of its position simply reflects the brevity of its position. Where they have rebutted specific factual points, I have noted already this at various places in the article. But I don't think it's appropriate for me to follow a comment by, say, Mike Rinder with a statement saying "The Church of Scientology says that Mike Rinder is a liar" or whatever the attack du jour might be. Actually, I've just realised that there is also a practical problem - thanks to the Tampa Bay Times' recent website changes, I can't find the Scientology response to the Hole stories. It's listed here but the link doesn't work any more. But that response is, as I said, little more than "they're liars and it never happened". Prioryman (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I've found a Church of Scientology statement to ABC News on the account of The Hole given in court by Debbie Cook last year - see [8]. As you can see, it simply flatly denies any her account, accuses her of misdeeds and blurbs Scientology's expansion. The statement is entirely non-responsive on the specific claims made by Cook and instead attacks her personal integrity. I can't access the statements made to the Tampa Bay Times, as noted above, but they are in the same vein. It's a standard Scientology approach known as "dead agenting" where they "attack the attacker" without actually offering much of a defence or rebuttal of the specific claims. Prioryman (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, the statement says rather clearly that Cook's claims are contradicted by documented statements she has made and statements from people present during these alleged incidents. That is not simply denying the claims and attacking her credibility. Looking over some of the other responses it is also clear that many details in their statements are not included in the article. For instance, the article states they denied interviews to the Times and didn't answer detailed questions, but their statement to the Times says the paper cancelled interviews with multiple high-level officials, including Miscavige himself, and that the Church provided a large amount of evidence against the allegations.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Since review discussion is ongoing, noting that fact with this icon. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • There are very good reasons why previous testimony and documents provided or written by people contradict what they are reporting in contemporary arenas, among the most obvious are fear of retribution/retaliation for speaking the truth previously, or a previous ideological mindset of denial and wishful thinking which has been discarded in favor of reality, truth, and a desire for exposure -- once the fear of retribution and retaliation can be diminished through circumstance.
Cook -- as well as an endless series of orevious Scientology customers, owners, operators -- are constrained to lie, confligate, deny, and alter the truth about their previous involvement with the Scientology corporation, but oncethey are capable of walking away, once their friends and family "disconnect" from them, once they see that they have nothing left to fear or to lose for speaking the truth, we find extant in the overwhelming mountain of documentation that one-time-customers of Scientology finally not only speak the truth about what was done to them and what they did to others, but we also find that there is a considerable plethora of supporting documentation.
So it is with The Hole, just as it is for the so-called "Eagle Sniper Nest" situated and photographed above the Scientology corporation's fortified compound at Gilman Hot Spring where The Hole is situated.
There is no controversy about the existance or non-existance of The Hole, Cook's and other peolpe's discussions about the quasi-prison so far as The Holes existance is not something that can be disputed successfully. The various aspects and attributes of The Hole are subjecct to variation in reporting due to changing circumstances of individuals being held in the facility, however one can't point to what Cook and others wrote and said while they were compelled to lie on behalf of Scientology as an indication of their lack of credibility or honesty. Scientology customers and owners/operators lie, they're trained to (In their so-called "TR-L" routines.)
The article sovering Scientology's Hole overwhelmingly deserves to be included in the Did You Know queue insofar as it's another fascinating, verified, testable aspect of a notorious corporate entity that harbors considerable interest world wide. Damotclese (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • After reading all of the article, I am of the opinion that both Physical punishment in Scientology and Musical chairs are WP:UNDUE. The former spends five paragraphs mainly discussing Sea Org, a practice which, according to our article, "moved to land bases in 1975" and, in addition, of the 800-words in that Physical punishment in Scientology section, only 120-words, including the last 26, state Scientology's view. Grossly unbalanced and could be trimmed to a small paragraph. After all, most of what it says is included in Sea Org anyway! The latter section on Musical Chairs does indeed discuss one acknowledged musical chair incident using 212-words; the rest of the 670-word paragraph is, I believe WP:UNDUE and could be similarly trimmed. The later three sections of the article discuss, I believe, relevant aspects of The Hole. I disagree with some editors above who believe that the hook cannot be made more neutral. Consider (no need, in my opinion to editorialise the hook) ...
  • ALT3 [based on ALT2]: "... that top Church of Scientology executives have reportedly been confined to The Hole (pictured) and subjected to the Church's "ecclesiastical justice" system?"
New hook so needs another reviewer --Senra (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, Date length and hook. All OK. Good to go. Although I'd have thought it might be quite amusing if the hook was something like "people were sent to the hole for SCOHB" but I don't think we should draw this nom out any more than necessary. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Though I think Senra has a point about the UNDUE issues, I'm surprised to find that I was wrong about whether a neutral(er) hook could be written. I could live with ALT3 on the front page as long as the context of the "ecclesiastical justice" quote checks out. Please don't count this as an official DYK review - I'm not enough of a regular here to feel that my opinion is the best one available. Best to wait for someone with more clue to review as well. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I will respond to Senra's issues shortly, but in the meantime a couple of quick updates: I've amended the article so that the quotes that come from the video are referenced to the page where the video now appears, and I've tweaked Senra's hook slightly to refer to "dozens of" executives (I think it's worth giving a rough idea of how many people we're talking about); I've also linked "ecclesiastical justice" to Ethics (Scientology), which is the name of the "ecclesiastical justice" system that it operates. Prioryman (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • (I'm not sure about this but ...) tweaking a hook requires a new ALT doesn't it? Otherwise anyone reviewing that hook before it was tweaked hasn't actually reviewed the tweak. Nit-picking Prioryman's recent tweaks I still believe dozens of is needless editorialising. Also, shouldn't ecclesiastical justice really link to Scientology Justice? --Senra (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Well spotted, I hadn't realised that article existed - I agree with your latter point and I've updated the link accordingly. Why do you feel that "dozens of" is needless editorialising? It makes a difference, doesn't it, whether we are talking about (say) 2 people or 200? It adds a sense of scale which the hook otherwise lacks, and it's not a statement of opinion - it's a simple statement of fact about what has been reported. Prioryman (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed and actually I am not disputing the dozens of fact. My concern is that this article is contentious. Neutralising the hook is one way of getting this DYK passed and on the main page (other issues aside of course). I accept that my un-tweaked hook was less punchy but I hold that it was balanced and, I feel, gives enough information for someone to read more—erm, hooky?. I am sincerely trying to help here --Senra (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I realise that and I do appreciate it, so thanks for your efforts. I honestly don't see how adding "dozens of" makes the hook any more punchy or is unbalanced. Is there even any dispute about the numbers? None of the Church's statements seem to have addressed this, so as far as I know it's not an issue that's in dispute anywhere. Do you think adding "dozens of" is sufficiently objectionable to reject the hook? Prioryman (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "Do [I] think adding "dozens of" is sufficiently objectionable to reject the hook?". For me? No. Because it is sourced, e.g. in Tampa Bay Times (12 January 2013): "... dozens of managers for the Church of Scientology endured an unusual trial by fire. The church called it 'ecclesiastical discipline', ... The church says their stories are lies and exaggerations". But, it wont be me accepting a hook that I proposed (erm, and you tweaked) --Senra (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'm happy with this. Now, in answer to the issues you raised about the first two sections, I've completely rewritten them to give (1) a background on the base itself, so that the setup there is clearer to the reader; (2) a very brief primer on the Sea Org and the "Ethics" system; (3) a clearer chronology of the events leading up to the start of The Hole. I'll ask C of E to look over it and confirm that they're happy with the article as it now stands, plus the new hook you suggested. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • FYI and from someone very familiar with the workings of Scientology. The revised hook is kinda missing the entire point. What was/is reportedly practiced in "the Hole" is by no means the prescribed "Church's 'ecclesiastical discipline' system". Quite the opposite in many ways. In fact, if the Church were to comment on what went on there that is what they would say was happening, just our justice system at work. Rinder et al are claiming something entirely different. That there was some weird perversion of something that does not much resemble Scientology. --Lyncs (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the Church denies the existence of the Hole so nothing they say would be appropriate to the hook, IMO. They say only that execs were subject to Church ethics but not the Hole, that does not exist. Bit of a conundrum because the only acknowledgment of your article's subject comes from detractors. Also why it is hard to make a neutral hook that actually says anything meaningful. You can simply go with ALT5 "... that dozens of top Church of Scientology executives have reportedly been confined to The Hole (pictured)" or add, "which former members have described as abusive?" That last could be tweaked but since you want to add a decriptive bit and the only descriptive bits are one-sided, I think something like that would be the most bland you could go with. --Lyncs (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This is "hooky" and covers both sides ALT6 "... former members report that dozens of top Church of Scientology executives have been confined to The Hole, a place that the Church says does not exist?" --Lyncs (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • By all means suggest another hook as you are doing but please read all of the above before committing this particular DYK to a further round of extensive discussion. My own opinion (FWIW) of ALT6 as proposed is that it is not balanced. The very point is that the Church denies activities discussed in the article and stating what is reported against the Church plus a neutral statement from the Church avoids all NPOV in the hook --Senra (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • In reference to your edit summary, "Let's not go around again people?", I have been involved with this nom almost since the beginning so it is hardly another "go around" for me. The problem is that y'all, in the interest of blandness, have turned the hook into something that reflects neither what the Church says (the Hole does not exist) nor what the detractors say (it is akin to torture in there). Y'all made the latter part of the hook from whole cloth (there is a Hole and Church justice is practiced there). --Lyncs (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Please forgive me as I certainly did not intend for the possibility of my es to be taken personally. Far from it. My intention was my own frustration at spending most of my afternoon and evening getting editors to agree with article changes and a (yes, bland and neutral) hook. I had thought it was all resolved. It seems like it might not yet be resolved. If my frustration came across to you personally, then I apologise without reservation --Senra (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No prob and apology not really necessary but accepted nonetheless. I understand the desire to be bland on such a hot topic. My only concern is that it reflect the claims being made by the involved parties. I have a sensitive (discerning) eye on this subject. --Lyncs (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yet again, Date length and hook all OK, GTG to Alt4. Although I'd say if it's just a minor tweak in the hook, you don't really need to make a new one. I hope the issues are ironed out now. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Hopefully we can put this to bed now! Prioryman (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I confirm that Prioryman's recent rewrite addresses my earlier concerns and that The C of E's acceptance of ALT4 makes this all good to go. Thanks to everyone involved here (striking earlier ALTs) --Senra (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Prioryman did a good job in addressing the issues with the first two sections and I think the suggested hook is good, but I am still concerned about the nature of the "Life in The Hole" and "Exposing The Hole" sections as far as the heavy use of long, negative quotations from a handful of former officials. I think these should be paraphrased and summarized before it would be appropriate to pass. In addition the "Escaping from The Hole" section includes one person (Brousseau) who was clearly noted as not having been in The Hole and two other individuals (Rinder and DeVocht) where the cited source appears to make no mention of The Hole and other sources seem to indicate that they were not in The Hole at the time they left, Rinder was obviously not even at the base. The mentions of Rinder and DeVocht should be based on sources that actually mention The Hole and the material and section heading changed to more accurately reflect the incidents being included.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Hole_(Scientology)&oldid=1031309490"