Talk:The Chronicle (Centralia, Washington)

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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).

Conflict of interest concerns and Neutrality

Recent edits in late November to early December 2023 by an admitted COI, and another potentially connected editor, has led to some concerns of WP:COI and the lack of neutrality (WP:NEUTRAL) and undue weight (WP:UNDUE).

While I am personally no fan of Joe Kent and a strong supported of this newspaper, we as editors must remain neutral and follow a summary style approach. No doubt I have failed a few times in doing so in my time here, but I certainly fail less now that I am more familiar of the guidelines and purposes of Wikipedia.

That being said, the way the Joe Kent lawsuit(?) section was reworded came across as defensive, one-sided, and felt as if the editors were relitigating the retraction request here at Wiki. Including mentions the law group involved and the lawyer's connection to an unrelated person to the matter further strengthens my thought process on this. Massively and completely understandable considering the abhorrent nature of the issue...however, this is all against our purpose here...someone can certainly be, like, totally wrong and stuff, but that is an argument for elsewhere. It is our "job" to just write what is happening, withholding our emotions and viewpoints. When the retraction request escalates or is finalized, it will be added as needed.

As such, I had no choice but to reinstate the bland, to-the-point paragraph I originally wrote, [1], with inclusion of the newspaper standing by its reporting. I left all remaining additional content added outside this issue untouched. I thought that part was well done and notable.

On a closing note, I advise strongly that the editors recently involved read and follow the rules at WP:COI and its closely related sister-concern, WP:ADVOCACY.

Thanks!

Shortiefourten (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]