Talk:Marion County Record

Important Notes Before Editing This Article

webcomic xkcd 285

Please review the following before editing:

1. Please document your source by citing a reference to prove your text is verifiable.
2. Please add text that has a neutral point of view instead of sounding like an advertisement.
3. Please read the "Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles" chapter from the book Wikipedia : The Missing Manual, ISBN 9780596515164.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Raid incident

I found nothing about the mentioning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution but found about First Amendment to the United States Constitution being violated. If found, we could mention the fourth amendment violation in this case? Police in Kansas raid Marion newspaper office, seize computers, phones (usatoday.com) Cwater1 (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

We can mention anything that reliable sources think is important, but so far, they don't seem to think it very important. I think it's more likely that sources will start making the connection to Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service (another case of a sloppy warrant being used to seize a publisher's equipment) – but again, we wouldn't mention it until they do, and preferably not unless it's more than a single source or a passing mention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't want to throw words into the article that isn't in the source. Cwater1 (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

As a general rule, we should WP:Use our own words, because copyright violations are bad. That can include using synonyms, near-synonyms, and other words that aren't in the source.

What we shouldn't do is mention facts that aren't in the sources, or use words that clearly contradict what the sources are saying. We can substitute words like thief and mugger and robber and even the accused, but we should not turn sources that say "he robbed the victim at gunpoint" into "he politely asked to borrow a few dollars from his friend". That would not be changing "the wording"; that would be misrepresenting the facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, right. I knew that we shouldn't say statements or facts that are unsourced or not in the sources. Cwater1 (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the raid section's a complete mess, mostly due to wikipedia's referencing of journalistic sources that are just gonna side with the paper involved in the raid. Time to neutral it up. Americanfreedom (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The definition of neutral on Wikipedia is that the article matches what the reliable sources say. If you read the quick summary of qualities associated with reliability, then you'll find that it aligns very closely with the practices of mainstream journalism. Therefore, to the extent that the article summarizes the views of mainstream journalism, the article is already Wikipedia:Neutral.

If by "neutral it up" you meant "We should give equal validity to both sides of the story, even though the reliable sources aren't doing that", then that would be a policy violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring the comments, this reddit page [1] ends up linking some neutral-looking sources. 174.78.244.162 (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Reddit would qualify as a reliable source. Cwater1 (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I said it links to some neutral-looking sources. 174.78.244.162 (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The link seems to have an unrelated topics. Cwater1 (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

High level of detail, and suggestions

I appreciate having a good amount of detail in articles about newspapers, but this one takes it to an extreme. I don't think we need to include the names of people who had a passing role in the 19th century, for instance. I've tidied up some parts that seem pretty straightforward, but I think this article needs more editing. In addition, most of this detail is either unsourced, or appears to be sourced to the paper's own website, which is not ideal. (I've found independent sources for a few of the facts, and added them in.) I'm not proposing anything too extreme, just that the prose be tightened up a bit, to focus only on significant milestones, and ideally ones that can be attributed to independent sources.

I'd suggest a spinoff article about Hoch Publishing could absorb some of the detail about its other newspaper holdings. I've removed some detail about individual publishers who already have a Wikipedia bio of their own, where a reader can find that info; and based on some basic research it looks like there are a few other individuals who might be notable enough for their own biographies. So that's another way to help this article get more focused on the history of the paper itself. Thoughts, anyone? -~~~~ Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather have articles about the newspapers than about a holding company. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

The police raid has been added in several ways to the lead section, and removed. Contrary to the strong language used in a recent edit summary, Wikipedia policy does not dictate whether or not a specific fact should be mentioned in the lead section. (Relevant guidance on that in WP:LEAD.)

Rather than revert-war, I'd urge anyone with a strong opinion one way or another to make an argument here on the talk page. Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

A suggestion: Often in cases like this, simply adding the most recent thing can be jarring, as it seems to give undue attention to recent events. But, a lead section (as discussed in the link above) should ideally summarize the entire article, meaning that it should give an overview of the detailed history, etc.

So in this case, one possibility would be to add a second paragraph in the lead section, with a sentence for each major phase in the paper's history, e.g. one for the various owners in the first few decades, one sentence for the Hoch family ownership, and one for the Meyer family ownership, followed by a sentence about the raid. This approach would help the reader, who is likely arriving here due to hearing about the recent raid, confirm that they've found the right article, but also get a little context for the recent news before diving into the details. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that the raid needs to be mentioned in the lead. It'd be rather silly for an editor to say that 40% of the article's contents can't get mentioned at all in the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I gave it a quick try, please feel free to edit/change. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

That looks much better. Thank you so much for doing that.

I'm not (personally) absolutely sure that the allegation of identity theft originated with the local business owner. I assume that's the case (because: why else would this whole thing have started?), but if there isn't a source directly saying this, it might be better to say something like "an allegation of identity theft involving a local business owner". She's getting blamed for a lot of things, and while she seems to have earned some part of that, I would not wish that experience on anyone, and I would not wish for us to make this experience any worse for her. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Good point, I've tried to adjust to accommodate that. I also put a mention that the materials had been returned (just announced this afternoon), but I'm gonna step back for the evening. Looks like it's really coming along! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.

I assume that there are parallel efforts at Marion, Kansas and Eric K. Meyer, but I haven't seen any discussions about coordinating them, or checked those articles myself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about possible merge

Hi,

There's a discussion here:

Talk:Raid of the Marion County Record#Merging Marion County Record content into this article? regarding moving some of the 2023 police raid subsection from Marion County Record to Raid of the Marion County Record.

Feel free to contribute there.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

News - Reporter for Newspaper sues Marion Police Chief

This article has a PDF copy of the lawsuit too. https://www.kwch.com/2023/08/30/reporter-suing-marion-police-chief-after-raid/ - • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)