Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/2017–18 Thai temple fraud investigations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

2017–18 Thai temple fraud investigations

[edit]
(
)
  • ... in the 2017–18 Thai temple fraud investigations, it turned out that government officers illegally asked Buddhist temples to return 75% of government funds received? Source: "มีการทอนเงินกลับไปที่ผู้บริหารชั้นสูงของสำนักงานพระพุทธศาสนาแห่งชาติ 100 ละ 75 ค่ะ ขอไปร้อยหนึ่ง ทางวัดได้แค่ 25 ค่ะ" [75% of the money was returned to high-level managers of the National Office of Buddhism. For example, they asked for 100, but only obtained 25.] (Thai Rath, 2017)
  • Reviewed: Australamphilina elongata
  • Comment: Source is a video news report. Thai news outlets only upload their reports on Youtube.

Created by Farang Rak Tham (talk) and Wikiman5676 (talk). Nominated by Farang Rak Tham (talk) at 12:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Maybe something like "on May 25, 2018, the Thai junta launched simultaneous raids of four Buddhist temples using up to 200 commandos to bring in six monks for questioning?" Wikiman5676 (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, but you need to add the title of the article, and keep it brief. Personally, I think the part on the officers' abuse is what stands out most though.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Edited.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Full review needed now that an ALT hook has been provided. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham and Wikiman5676: The hook fact (that four Buddhist temples were raided) is not explicitly mentioned in the article: it only mentions that temples were raided without giving a specific number. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I have added a detail mentioning the fourth temple now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Ping, ping, ping.
The three temples are mentioned in the Third investigation section.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
What is the source of the statement? The English source provided does not mention four temples. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, which English source are you referring to? This source mentions the temples. It is an article in the China Morning Post, is in the section on the Third investigation. It was first published in Bangkok Post.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I meant that the source does not specifically mention that four temples were raided, only that temples were raided. Perhaps the best course of action here is simply to omit the number of temples here? Since the sources aren't really clear on the number. Something like "...simultaneously raided Buddhist temples,..."? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
How about: ALT2: .... that in the 2017–18 Thai temple fraud investigations, the Thai junta simultaneously raided several Buddhist temples, using up to 200 commandos to bring in nine monks for questioning?
I've corrected the number of monks now, since the authorities intended to arrest all of monks mentioned in the list in the Third investigation section, plus Phra Buddha Issara. I've also improved the main hook a bit.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
knock, knock.
Still seems off: the hook mentions nine monks, but the Third investigation section mentions only eight (or as many as 12 if the TNN24 source is to be believed). Considering the problems with the number of monks, I think we'll need a new hook here that doesn't involve numbers. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Another try: ALT3: ... that in the 2017–18 Thai temple fraud investigations, the Thai junta simultaneously raided several Buddhist temples, using up to 200 commandos to arrest a small number of monks?
Narutolovehinata5, if you do not approve because of NEUTRALITY (the phrase a small number?) or other reasons, then I am only continuing with the main hook, and will discard all alternative hooks. Unless Wikiman5676 wants to come up with a better alt hook.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I'll wait for Wikiman5676's comments since the way I see it, a hook focusing on numbers isn't working out. Reading the article again, perhaps a hook about it leading to calls for political reform, or maybe a hook relating to international or domestic reactions could work here? Courtesy ping BlueMoonset. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
So what's wrong with the main hook, if I may ask? You never reviewed it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 00:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Pinging.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 00:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I say ALT3: ... that in the 2017–18 Thai temple fraud investigations, the Thai junta simultaneously raided several Buddhist temples, using up to 200 commandos to arrest a small number of monks? would work, since it doesnt specify the exact number and that appears to be the dispute. or maybe something like "The Thai Junta raided a number of Buddhist temples..." Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The only interesting ALT4 I can think of involving the responses is ...that the Thai Junta defrocked a number of high ranking monks before trial in the 2017–18 Thai temple fraud investigations. or something like that. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

pinging, pinging, pinging.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply as I have been busy lately. Anyway, I'm not really too sure on ALT3 because of the issues I've raised above involving numbers, while ALT4 is not really that interesting to a broad audience. As a suggestion, I think a hook involving the investigations leading to calls for reform in Thai Buddhism, or a hook relating to international or domestic responses, might work here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, can you please say something about the first hook, ... in the 2017–18 Thai temple fraud investigations, it turned out that government officers illegally asked Buddhist temples to return 75% of government funds received?
Right now your review is incomplete. Please note that the first hook was never reviewed; Wikiman5676 simply commented on the hook as a fellow nominator, thus BlueMoonset's statement that Full review needed now that an ALT hook has been provided, though well-intended, was misleading.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but ALT0 is not really that interesting either. It's rejected as well. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Farang Rak Tham, my point was that while there had been discussion regarding various hooks, the basic DYK review, covering newness, timeliness, neutrality, copyvio, etc., had still not been done, and a full review will need to be done at some point in addition to the hooks discussions. That hasn't changed, and Narutolovehinata5 will have to cover those aspects eventually if they wish to complete the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, BlueMoonset.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I am starting over again, Narutolovehinata5. I've crossed out the hooks you have not approved. Please note there is another alt hook left above: ALT4. You mentioned above you'd like to see a hook about responses. These are another two hooks with regard to responses:
ALT5: ... that critics accused the Thai junta of using the 2017–18 Thai temple fraud investigations as a cover-up for their own failings?
ALT6: ... that the 2017–18 Thai temple fraud investigations led to the imprisonment of high-ranking monks and was seen by critics as political revenge?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT6 might be the way to go here, but this appears to be a sensitive topic and the wording right now also appears to be rather sensitive. Perhaps ALT6 can be rephrased? "Political revenge" sounds like a very strong term and it's also rather vague: "revenge for what"? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I think ALT7 is probably the best that can be done here: the wording is exact and neutral, and presents views without becoming too undue or showing preference towards a particular political viewpoint (the hook only describes and does not advocate about the critics' claim that the arrests were politically motivated). Here's the rest of the review: new enough, long enough, properly sourced (Thai sources accepted AGF), no close paraphrasing, and QPQ provided. ALT7 is interesting, cited, and good to go. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/2017–18_Thai_temple_fraud_investigations&oldid=848735194"