Talk:Spokane Civic Theatre

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Event Venues (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Event Venues, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Event VenuesWikipedia:WikiProject Event VenuesTemplate:WikiProject Event VenuesEvent Venues articles

Controversy section

I've done my best to clarify the referencing of this section, but the blog reference should be removed and replaced with a better one (especially since it turns out to be a reference to the Civic Doody blog itself). I cannot find another reference to the State of Washington's decision. Can anyone with access to local press coverage or state records supply one? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the article (fully, unfortunately, since the accounts used for this little edit war would not be stopped by semi-protection) for two weeks. I think it's rather obvious that Jpr1176 (talk · contribs) is the James Price mentioned in the only linked article that meets reliable source criteria. As such, these edits run afoul of the conflict of interest policy. The theater's edits do, too, but I also have to consider the fact that a disinterested editor applying policy properly might also have reasonably decided to remove the section entirely. The account name is also a clear violation of the username policy. I will be discussing this with both editors.

I think we're going to need some other editors to look into how we should handle this. The incident did receive local coverage in a reliable source, but the blog cannot be used as a source nor can it be an external link. We cannot allow Wikipedia to be used to advance an agenda. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to make the controversy section into a more neutral point of view. However, I was also unable to find a reference to the State of Washington's decision. This may be the most neutral such a section can be. If the section is still insufficient, I would suggest removing the Controversy section completely. Deanna (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]