Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses in Singapore
Latest comment: 2 days ago by Narutolovehinata5 in topic Did you know nomination
Did you know nomination
edit
( )
- ... that many Jehovah's Witnesses in Singapore have been imprisoned for refusing to serve in the military?
Created by Kingoflettuce (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 170 past nominations.
KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 05:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC).
The article is new enough and long enough at the time of the nomination. Earwig is giving me the "Too Many Requests" error right now so I am unable to check for close paraphrasing. A QPQ has been done. Almost all the sources are offline so I will assume good faith for the sourcing. The main issue right now is the hook: it's only mentioned in the lede without a citation. The rest of the article does not appear to directly support the "routinely imprisoned" statement, only that Witnesses have been regularly arrested and some have been jailed. My suggestion would be a rephrasing of the hook to make it closer to the article text. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to Kingoflettuce to make sure they're aware of the above comment. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 Have changed it to "many" (and specified that it's ~6 annually according to the BBC) have been imprisoned (although it's effectively a routine IMO, but you're right that the sources cited don't quite say that.) Appreciate the ping, Clover! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 17:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Just one last minor issue before I approve this: the phrase "although they do not receive permanent criminal records." is very close to the BBC source, so if it's possible to rephrase it, that would be appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can't think of a suitable rephrase at the moment (is it right to infer that they are given "temporary" records instead? I don't think so.) It's a basic fact KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Just one last minor issue before I approve this: the phrase "although they do not receive permanent criminal records." is very close to the BBC source, so if it's possible to rephrase it, that would be appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I guess we can't really do anything about that wording, so I'll accept it per WP:LIMITED. This should be good to go as there are no other issues and the BBC source supports the hook fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
