Talk:The Hole (Scientology)

Section titles?

I do think the section titles should be changed. They do not seem neutral at the moment. Really, this should be formatted like any other article about a place or building. First off, have a History section with subsection attached on to that. Then other sections can be proposed from there. Silverseren^C 23:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you can suggest a better set of titles, please go ahead. Prioryman (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Proposed deletion has been overturned; comments here are from people attracted from another website. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because the stated explanation is complete nonsense - the subject of the article has received high-profile coverage in multiple reliable sources, including a Pullitzer Prize-winning newspaper and a book by a Pullitzer Prize-winning author. Furthermore, the article has already been reviewed and approved for running as a Did you know? article - see Template:Did you know nominations/The Hole (Scientology). Finally, the article has so far had over 105,000 page views in only three days – without any disputes or controversies – and has been highly rated by dozens of readers (though unfortunately the page ratings aren't currently visible due to this speedy deletion request). I also note that the nominator of the speedy deletion has a severe conflict of interest due to being a self-acknowledged member of the Church of Scientology. Prioryman (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Looking over the article I could find nothing that is inaccurate or, for that matter, nothing that is not neutral point of view. So far the current version as of right now agrees with numerous newspaper, magazine, television coverage of the Scientology organization's "hole" as well as eye-witness testimony from current and previous Scientology customers. Requests for deletion is going to be coming from current owners/operators as well as current customers who are performing "amends" to be allowed out of the corporation's "Rehabilitation Project Force" prison and for other benefits. If vandalism and deletion are a problem, the same IP addresses that are banned from vandalizing information about Scientology should be applied to stop Scientology customers and employees from vandalizing this entry. Damotclese (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Oh, I should add that I'm an expert on Scientology, inquiry on my background may be posted to my talk wall. Damotclese (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedily deleted because it is the subject of numerous secondary sources, sufficient to meet GNG, and any NPOV issues can be handled without deletion. --– Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedily deleted because...it was, first of all, reviewed at Did you know nominations for approval to be a Main Page DYK. It was already vetted by a seasoned editor at DYK. One of the criteria for DYK, is they won't allow attack articles for consideration. The editor who nominated this for Speedy Deletion is by their own admission on their user page, on Wikipedia for the sole reason of defending Scientology. Talk about Conflict of Interest on this article! -— Maile (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, I have disclosed that I am editing for WP:NPOV on Scientology-related pages. I don't see why this is a problem. Did you do research on the editor that wrote this article? "Prioryman" has been topic-banned on Scientology and his credibility is questionable. See following links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Proposed_decision#ChrisO_restricted Furthermore, all the "sources" used in this page go towards the same bias and agenda. There is no neutral source to fall back on. "The Hole" only "reportedly" exists. Why maintain a page when it's all based on allegations?NestleNW911 (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think dead agenting works on Wikipedia, so I'd suggest that you focus on the sources rather than the article's author. Quite obviously I am not under a topic ban and my "credibility" is hardly an issue given that I'm not a source for the article. This is an article about an ongoing controversy, so there is naturally going to be a polarization between what supporters and detractors of the Church of Scientology say. As long as both sides are reported fairly and from reliable sources, it's fine. Many others have read this article and they seem to think it's fine - if you look under The Hole (Scientology)#Bibliography at the "Rate this page" section, you'll see that the article's trustworthiness and objectivity are highly rated (4.5 and 4.3 out of 5 respectively). Prioryman (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I understand your hesitation in having "The Hole" deleted. Yes, I have disclosed my identity as a Scientologist and one of my main concerns is NPOV in Scientology-related pages. I'd like to emphasize that I have honestly declared my affiliation and I do my best to abide by Wikipedia policy. (I honestly felt that the page was contradicting Wiki Policy) Having said that, I can defer to the maintenance of this page, but I do not agree that both sides are "reported fairly." I will continue my research as a Wikipedian and propose edits in order to balance the perspective of this page because it is teeming with challenged NPOV and degree of questionable sources. I also question the reliability of the ratings on this page - these ratings may come from individuals who have a biased agenda.NestleNW911 (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Well, you're very welcome to propose edits (and I would suggest proposing them first here rather than directly editing the page), if you think there are specific things that need to be addressed. So far you've only offered general concerns. It would be more helpful if you could identify specifics. Prioryman (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Just for the interest of the parties keeping tabs on this, NestleNW911, the editor who proposed the deletion has been topic banned for one year, "and his credibility is questionable" to quote NestleNW911's line of reasoning.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the update, I believe we can inform external individuals about the Internet who are interested in this Wikipedia entry that the issue of the proposed deletion has been resolved and that The Hole will not be removed. If I'm mistaken, please let me know. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --108.232.106.150 (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC) ... It is in the public interest that this information be published. The reports on the Church of Scientology "Hole" are backed up by a couple of dozen first-hand eye-witness accounts. Do not let Wikipedia content be dictated by an abusive cult dictator, please. Michael A. Hobson Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here) --72.91.107.82 (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I was there. The Hole is real and there has been extensive media coverage of this very subject despite many threats of legal action by the church of Scientology. None of those threats have materialized into legal action where there would be a chance for all the evidence to be disclosed in a court of law under oath. The media coverage itself is evidence enough that this is a topic of public interest. Mike Rinder Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because...the former Scientology executives who have blown the whistle on the existence and abuse in The Hole were known as leaders within the Scientology community worldwide. In San Antonio Texas on Thursday, February 9th 2012 Debbie Cook former head of Flag, the world's largest Scientology delivery organization testified under oath not only of the existence of The Hole but testified in detail the abuse she witnessed and endured personally. The last people in the world that veteran Scientologists like myself would ever have expected to see in global news headlines would have been Debbie Cook, Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder blowing the whistle on crimes within the church and yet there they were. These three specifically were known by name and face throughout the Scientology community worldwide respected for their leadership roles. To delete this entry would be to contribute to the abuse that good people are enduring right this minute in that hell hole because it's been so easy for it to be hidden behind the razor fences that surround it. Gayle Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.158.98 (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here)evidence exists in the form of affidavids from people who have been forcibly placed in 'the hole' as well as anecdoital evidence from numerous people that the hole exists and there are people imprisoned against their will within it. Photos also exist of the hole.--Michael IFA (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedily deleted because... it is established fact by sworn testimony as stated in the article the Hole exists, or clearly existed through recent times. It is also fact many former high ranking executives are still being held in this compound by order of David Miscavige. The compound is known as Gold or Int (International) Base. The Hole as the photo clearly shows are two double wide trailers converted first to offices, then to a jail. What has gone on there is now a matter of sworn court testimony, re: Debbie Cook. The entire compound is surrounded by razor wire and/or security fencing. RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.219.230 (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be deleted at all because: 1) A Google search for 'The Scientology Hole' generates "About 2,160,000 results (0.36 seconds)" on 29th January 2013, indicating significant interest in this subject. 2) The Hole (Scientology) is referred to in newspapers widely: The Daily Mail PUBLISHED: 16:24, 3 July 2012 | UPDATED: 08:50, 4 July 2012 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2168225/Tom-Cruise-Katie-Holmes-divorce-Inside-Scientologys-Sea-Org-Suri-faced-joining.html) The Sun Published: 17th February 2012 (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4135513/Scientologists-waterboarded-and-beat-me-says-former-church-official.html) Daily Express Tuesday July 3,2012 (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/330457/Scientology-A-cult-in-crisis) The Independent Tuesday 08 February 2011 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sect-scandal-scientologists-outraged-by-defectors-claims-2207428.html?origin=internalSearch San Antonio Express News/My San Antonio Wednesday, April 25, 2012 (http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Church-of-Scientology-drops-Bexar-suit-against-3510603.php) New York Times Published: January 17, 2013 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/books/review/going-clear-lawrence-wrights-book-on-scientology.html?pagewanted=all) International Business Times July 04 2012 10:19 AM (http://www.ibtimes.com/mystery-shelly-miscavige-wife-scientology-leader-and-matchmaker-tom-cruise-and-katie-holmes-missing) The Village Voice Thu., Aug. 2 2012 (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/08/scientology_concentration_camp_the_hole.php) Tampa Bay Times In Print: Sunday, January 13, 2013 (http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/article1270047.ece) The New York Daily News July 2, 2012 (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/church-scientology-inspector-general-marty-rathbun-explains-escaped-destructive-cult-katie-holmes-article-1.1106735) Richard Kaminski (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC) What's up with all these belated "contested deletion" sections? The article isn't being deleted. It's obvious it would survive an AfD. We don't need these statements any more. Ideas for dealing with POV are more salient. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Why do you think there are a whole series of identically formed protests about this article??? Carrite (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I'm a bit baffled myself. Given the preformatting, I think someone has posted or emailed to people a link to the diff where NestleNW911 made their speedy deletion nomination (i.e. [1]). These IP editors all seem to be clicking on the "Click here to contest this speedy deletion button" - that's what generates the boilerplate we're seeing here. I'll try to get to the bottom of it, as this is all rather unnecessary. Prioryman (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Right, I figured someone send an APB out on a forum or whatnot to attract people to come save the article. I'm wondering why they're clicking a "Click here to contest this speedy deletion button" that is no longer on the page. Maybe Occum's razor says that whoever posted on that forum told people to do that here, even though it's no longer necessary to contest the deletion that's already been contested. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Well, if you look at the diff I posted above, it shows the button. I think people are going to that diff or that version of the article rather than to how it is now. I've looked on a couple of forums already but not found any APBs. If it's been sent out on a private email list, as I suspect, I don't think there's anything we can do other than hatting any further contests. I think we'll survive it, somehow. Prioryman (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here) --69.197.221.160 (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC) It is 100% truth. And scientology wants to keep their lies going to extort money from people. Contested Deletion Testimony with regards to the hole has been recorded under oath during the trial of Debbie Cook. It's existence is well documented and corroborated. Whether it exists now or has been disbanded after such public attention is irrelevant to the historical value of the information. Scientology's controversial nature is under heavy scrutiny by the media and public at large. That coupled with the informative nature of wikipedia should be enough to allow the survival of this page. Scientology representatives continuously claim that the sources quoted in articles are unreliable. The do this by creating some kind of mass, unsubstantiated conspiracy against the church. As is the case with most conspiracy theories it lacks a simple ingredient: motive. The existence of this information is important to people who are seeking to research Scientology and the nature of the abuses that are occurring within the church. It would be against the ideals and goals of wikipedia to stomp out a page such as this, especially at the behest of a large corporation such as Scientology. I recommend that this page remain up as it is and will remain a valuable research to people with questions about Scientology. I sincerely hope that Wikipedia does not bow to the wishes of a criminal organization. It would be in Wikipedia's interest to refer to the lawsuits against the organization of Scientology in the country of France (seeing as Wikipedia is a global organization). Sincerely, Derek Bloch Dbloch7986 (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here) --74.96.148.253 (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Scientology who has been banned from making changes on Wikipedia is trying to delete this page. Contested deletion This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here) --66.131.109.244 (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC) This is NOT an attack page, it is a page that provides accurate information to help others avoid such abuses. Please do NOT delete. Contested deletion This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Deanblair06 (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Deanblair06 (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)There are literally scores of people who were in the hole and have talked about it. One of the more well known was Debbie Cook. She had been the Captain of the Flag Land Base in Clearwater Florida when she was called by David Miscavige to California where she personally was placed in the hole and testified to such in court. There is also Mike Rinder who was formerly the spokesperson for Scientology until he was placed in the hole. Really, there are many who were forced into the hole and have since left Scientology and have testified about it. Please do not take the current leaders word or the word of one of his side kicks. Of course he doesn't want anyone to know and will deny it as they have for years but people who have been in the hole have written about it and books have been authored about it as well. The hole does exist. Debbie Cooks testimony can be viewed by going to Tony Ortega's blog where he has video of it filmed in the court room. http://tonyortega.org/ Mark Headley wrote a book and discusses it there. Blown for Good by Marc Headley. Marty Rathbun was a former 2nd in command and has discussed it at length on his blog "Moving on up a Little Higher". He was witness to a hundred others who experienced the hole as was Mike Rinder. Deanblair06 (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedily deleted because.. Short answer: Without truth you have nothing, Long answer: There are worse places in $cientology than the hole, like the Lady Washington Gold mine in Tolumene CA... That mine was once owned by a big banking family, and used indian slaves, who would be paid by the weight of gold they scraped out of the rock with the golds balance with raisens on the balance.. When they could not work they were tossed down and unused mineshaft.. If you cant deal with the heat, I'll web the page. Regards Arnie Lerma Lermanet.com Exposing the CON — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.247.179 (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedily deleted because... It is all true and has been collobrated by many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.211.35 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Contested deletion This page should not be speedily deleted because... It refers to an actual place that has been linked to systematic and widespread human rights abuses. Many people have testified as to its existence including in a court of law, under penalty of perjury. The world needs to knows about this place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.74.22 (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Contested deletion: all people have a right to there opinions This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --50.53.155.184 (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Where are you guys coming from? The speedy deletion was removed a long time ago. SilverserenC 09:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Contested Did You Know? nomination

Regrettably there seems to be some opposition to this article appearing in the Did You Know? section on the Main Page. Comments are invited at Template:Did you know nominations/The Hole (Scientology). Prioryman (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Human Trafficking -- Background

There is a suggestion that the topic of human trafficking be discussed and that perhaps the classification may not be justified strongly enough to include Scientology's "Hole" in that classification. There is an overwhelming amount of documentary evidence both in criminal case law and civil case law covering Scientology's human trafficking however the most recent Federal investigations (which are still pending nation-wide indictments) are well covered:

• Church o -scientology being investigated for human trafficking allegations

• Scientology investigated homeland security human trafficking claims tony-ortega

• Homeland security investigating scientology for human trafficking <-- The most informative

• The fbi is investigating scientology for human trafficking <-- The most commented

• Scientology fbi's scientology investigation balancing the first amendment with charges <-- The most well-referenced

• U.S. Scientology lawsuit

Point being that there is no question whether or not Scientology commits human trafficking, it has been established previously in crimnial and civil cases, one of the most notable being in Madrid where 69 people were indicted for numerous charges including human trafficking. Enough documented evidence exists to warrant this article's classification as including human trafficking; we want articles to be as accurate, non-biased, and as inclusive as reasonable, so the classification is warranted. Damotclese (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Spain has a problem with human trafficking for the child rape vacation industry Human_trafficking_in_Spain which seems to be the most common form of human trafficking. What Scientology engages in is the more basic for of trafficking which approaches slavery, the inability to leave, make phone calls without being monitored and approved, working for either no wages or for wages that are pennies an hour. Damotclese (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've looked through those articles and cannot find any statement which ties "human trafficking" to "The hole." Some articles make reference to other articles that have been written about the hole, and some comments from users mention the hole, but nothing that would link this article to human trafficking investigations. Right now your evidence looks like original research through WP:SYNTH, or better stated your articles state that scientology is being accused of human trafficking, the hole is an article about scientology, therefore the hole should be tagged for the human trafficking category. Unless you can show me where in the articles the hole is being investigated as part of the human trafficking claims (I very well could have missed it) then I don't think this article belongs in that category.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you're beling deliberatly obtuse :) but for now I will Assume good faith in your query. The Hole discusses the Scientology enterprise's holding of customers and owners/operators against their will by applying manipulative practices to retain defacto-or-realized ownership of an individual's forced behavior (e.g. forced labor or forced sex trade (see Human trafficking and what constitutes traditional human trafficking.) Also see Brainwashing in the Rehabilitation Project Force Dr Stephen Kent)

As for "original research," FBI investigations, newspaper articles, and court documents do not constitute "original research." For purposes of the classification of The Hole artuicle being associated with human trafficking, the classification is obviously accurate and shall remain. Damotclese (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

please find a source that will qualify the standards of inclusion set forth in WP:SYNTH, and no I am not deliberatly being obtuse, I'm following wikipedia policies on what counts as verifiable information. Please remember that this is a Scientology article and is under ARBCOM sanctions, so right now what you are trying to include looks like it is very close to pushing a specific view of Scientology, one which I assure you Scientologists will find as disparaging, so we need to be absolutely sure that when challenged it passes muster.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

So if you want to include the catagory, you need to have an article that links the subject of the article, "the hole," with human trafficking, otherwise you should probably take this argument to the scientology article.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The article classifications already include The Hole as part of the human trafficking behavior of the Scientology enterprise. References that are rejected by people based upon ideological grounds or upon a difficulty understanding the materials do not invalidate said references. The classification shall remain. Thanks. (Also, Dev-T has ended. Final decision.) Damotclese (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so here is all I am asking you to do. Find ANY reliable source which says "the hole" (subject of the article) is evidence of "human trafficking" (your claim). If there aren't ANY reliable sources out there that have made that connection then you are drawing an original conclusion through WP:SYNTH. I am assuming by your reaction that you haven't been able to find any WP:RS that say the hole is part of the scientology human trafficking program. (and what the hell is Dev-T?).Coffeepusher (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Also some of your above sources aren't WP:RS, and none of them say that Scientology has committed human trafficking, they all say that charges have been filed, the church was found innocent, investigations ensued, and no further charges have been filed. All of this is "alleged" human trafficking, and none of it has been confirmed by an independent source (ie: courts of law, FBI investigation, etc.). So placing this article in the human trafficking category seems premature.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

From the articles I've read here and elsewhere, it looks like Scientology and human trafficking is a complicated issue. I believe that it should definitely be mentioned on-wiki, but what is not clear to me is whether or not it should be included in this article. For what it's worth, I recommend finding one article in WikiProject Scientology to expand the accusations of trafficking, maybe even Scientology and human trafficking. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those events took place in The Hole, but for now it would be easier to avoid linking the two until more reliable sources are published. This is not an issue that is going away any time soon, so we can wait to add the link. Andrew³²⁷ 06:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hole (Scientology)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 02:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I will do this review. It seems interesting. PrairieKid (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

See below.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   This article requires a copy edit. The grammar throughout has several mistakes. Quotations (such as the one at the beginning), commas, and spelling were some of the most common mistakes made in the article. N

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article cites many refs several times throughout, and about 3/4 of its refs are pages in books, which I am not able to check on, which worries me. I can't simply assume good faith. The Background section's 3rd paragraph needs more citations. N The Media exposure and legal inquiries section's 3rd-7th paragraphs all need more citations. N

Regarding books as citations, I refer you to WP:SOURCEACCESS. Andrew³²⁷ 14:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Y

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   A section called Escaping from The Hole?! The entire article is completely biased against Scientology. "Over the next three years, the number of people confined in The Hole..." N

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   This article has been nominated for deletion over a dozen times. I don't think the article is very secure. ?

Many Scientology articles have been subject to deletion campaigns and other tactics. This pattern ultimately led to a well known ArbCom case. Andrew³²⁷ 14:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Y

2. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article does not meet the GA criteria at the time. I don't think it has the potential to be upgraded to meeting the criteria within a reasonable amount of time. PrairieKid (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hole (Scientology)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) 20:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	This is a blog, how is it RS? And it is being used for information on a BLP was well. Would these two[2][3] be better?. You're right, it's not - someone else has added that. I've reused a reliable source from later in the paragraph to source that info. Prioryman (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you. Gotta say, you have done a great job on this, I am going to read through it one more time but am seeing no issues at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Easiest GA review ever, well written, sourced and given the subject matter neutral, excellent job. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarity on the building

Can someone provide some source on the identification of this building? The framing of the areial photo here suggests it is the large, warehouse-like building composed of two intersecting squarish forms. However, all the descriptions indicate it is a double-wide trailer home, or multiple such trailer homes connected, which clearly could not be this large building. It seems to me the smaller buildings in front of the one pictured more closely fit the description. Walkersam (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There is some ambiguity to the language, yes. The video surveillance drone camera footage that was made public last month show two buildings that are inter-connected as the Scientology "executive" prison complex, both buildings of which look to comprise double-wide trailers. If I'm not mistaken, "The Hole" consists of two inter-linked double-wide trailers, the skirts around the bottom of the buildings hiding the under-carriage which would contain wheels and tow rigging make it difficult to determine if they are double-wide, yet the article's description appears to be accurate according to the covert video that was taken. Damotclese (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Hole (Scientology). 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/20120114150923/http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/ to http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114150923/http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/ to http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114150923/http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/ to http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)