Talk:Peter King (American politician)

2008 election

King again sought re-election to Congress in 2008 and while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) had planned to target King's seat in 2008, they let the Nassau Democrats find a candidate and effectively removed NY-03 from their watchlist. The Nassau Democrats fielded Graham Long in a long-shot bid to defeat King.. Long works for Nassau County as a member of the Long Island Regional Planning Board, and his family owns a catering business in Glen Cove.

King won the 2008 election, garnering 64% of the vote.

That seems to me to be all about the DCCC, and has not much to do with the article. This is about King.

How about:

King again sought re-election to Congress in 2008. The Democrats fielded Graham Long in a long-shot bid to defeat King. King won the 2008 election with 64% of the vote.

I am making the change, easily reverted if someone feels strongly. But... please explain the relevance to the article if you re-add.sinneed (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?

Peter King has made a number of controversial comments and committed a few actions that were widely attacked during his time in Congress, and yet there is no mention of anything controversial on this page, presenting a very unbalanced picture. Earlier versions of this page included both King's legislative accomplishments and some of the controversial comments (e.g. endorsement of racial profiling, and condemning an opponent for accepting campaign contributions from an Islamic group which King himself had accepted an even greater donation from). The page has been vastly expanded since I last looked at it, and it has at the same time become far less neutral. 68.194.217.223 (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The BLP does need attention. Start editing. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Violation

68.194.217.223 is absolutely correct. I tried some mild editing and was quickly and fully shut down. The entire discussion page is full of pov controlled censorship. All one needs do is review the discussion page and archives to see it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Slightly misleading lede?

While, as the lede states, "King is known as a rather successful Republican in a leaning Democratic county," King's district, not his county, is what matters. The district incorporates a small part of Suffolk County, and the district itself leans slightly Republican (Cook PVI of R+4). The lede suggests that King is winning in Democratic-leaning territory, but that is not the case. I can't think of any way to reword it - other than perhaps that "King is a successful Republican in a relatively moderate congressional district" - but that in itself is not unusual and probably not notable enough to be in the lede. 68.194.217.223 (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Removed MJ section.... If you want to include it you could go to the Death of Michael Jackson article. Michael Jackson is not even mentioned in the Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson articles and he has been all over television since the death.Tiocfaídh Ár Lá (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 03:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not about what others have or haven't done or said or what's in their Wiki. I'm not editing Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson because I don't have the sources, nor the knowledge on the situation. The IRA support, I know nothing about it. What I do know is that all major media outlets are now picking this up. There are more than 1300 articles in the last day over this man's comments. They are more controversial than the comments made about the IRA due to the highly public figure of Jackson. Everyone knew Jackson - not everyone knows about the IRA. To exclude purely on the basis that there's nothing in there from something else controversial alludes to the fact someone else hasn't added it in. To also exclude controversial comments, which are allowed by Wiki standards, half the comments in others biographies would also be eliminated. A lack of information should NOT the the standard on whether or not to add in any more. If A isn't there, B can't be added. Not a valid argument.Seola (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that the amount of coverage and controversy stirred up by King's comments has become noteworthy enough for inclusion. If an editor believes there is other information missing from the article, he or she is encouraged to add it themselves. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 14:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe "not everyone knows the IRA" is an underestimation of the average reader's intelligence... but there will be lots of people like me who first heard about Congressman King when he talked about Michael Jackson. Maybe the rest of his comments should be added too, the bit about people not respecting enough the soldiers died in Afghanistan. Alensha ^talk 14:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, this is NOT a forum for political discussion. If you have an edit you think should be made to the article, please feel free to do so - if there's disagreement, we can discuss it here, with neutrality in mind. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 14:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked it here first precisely because it's political and that's always a touchy subject... – Alensha ^talk 01:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, I think adding more of the quote is fine. The only thing I objected to was the last sentence in your statement. Maybe I'm being too stringent in "neutrality policing" and if so, I apologize. I just want to make sure we keep our Wiki wits about us. :) Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 01:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to discuss the disagreement with neutrality in mind. I believe that, from a neutral point of view that the section should AND should not be included. I believe it is within the power of all fence sitting neutral persons like myself to not make a decision and thereby agree with everyone at all times. I am learning from Obama! Never be specific! Talk about "feelings" and "impact" and what a "greater good we will do". I have to go vomit now and I leave you with the hope that you understand the silliness of "disagreement discussion neutrality". —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowesR1 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, it's possible to be neutral when editing a Wikipedia article; in fact, it's demanded of us by one of our bedrock principles. Disagreements should be over the ARTICLE, whether or not certain material should be included and how, NOT over the subject of the article. It's a fine, but extremely important, distinction. There are plenty of other places on the Internet to debate politics and the merits of a particular politician's comments, but this is not one of them. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The majority opinion disagrees with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_criticism#Neutral_point_of_view_and_conflicts_of_interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowesR1 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of MJ Section

A recent edit removed the Jackson section entirely, citing that the comment is already mentioned at Death of Michael Jackson and that inclusion of this is undue weight. I'm actually inclined to disagree, due to the widespread coverage that King himself is getting for the comment (it's more about King, less about Jackson). I think we can present the quote, the fact that it generated media coverage, and both praise and criticism, with neutrality. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be removed, at least not without providing a link to the other article where the incident is described. I put it back until someone decides what to do with it. Most readers looking up this article will look it up because of this quote. (Also, removed an apology that was inserted by someone on behalf of King, I believe it's fake...) – Alensha ^talk 01:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

Added this section in, the current commentary being relevant and starting to cause some uproar. I don't normally use TMZ as a link, but they have the direct video proof, rather than an article and the best current copy of Peter King's statements. Feel free to add here any comments or suggested revisions on this section. Given it's volatile nature, I feel it's imperative to add this section now.Seola (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's better to avoid the title "controversy" until we can get some sources besides TMZ talking about his remarks being controversial. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

While I thought about this - stating someone who was proven innocent to be a pedophile is a controversy in itself, regardless of the person. TMZ isn't "talking" about this - it's a link to the video of Peter King's saying own words, not an "inside source" article. You can't get anymore genuine than that, regardless of the original website. While only a few major news outlets have picked it up yet (given it's so new), many other bloggers, smaller independent news organizations are also starting to have commentary from writers, along with "average joe" interviews. I will add these in as additional references.Seola (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As to avoid the TMZ debacle, I've removed the TMZ link and the reference source to Newsday.Seola (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think it's important to be extra special careful in getting multiple reliable sources with WP:BLP, even if there is clear video footage. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that while I don't view the IRA as a terrorist group due to my own political views, I do find it funny that his comments on Michael Jackson seem to get more highlighted in this article than his 18 years of support for the IRA which was fighting a campaign against Americas number one ally. Tiocfaídh Ár Lá (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to add a section on his support for the IRA (properly cited). However, why do you feel the MJ section needs to be outright removed? Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 03:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Because outside of the next few days, it does not matter. Am I wrongTiocfaídh Ár Lá (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Things that politicians do matter in the future if they plan any more political campaigns. The article mentions he is thinking about running for the Senate.--Gloriamarie (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but a Wikipedia article talk page is not a place for a political discussion. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 22:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is when it relates to the article, as the question of whether this information matters does. I separated the information already in the article from the IRA into its own section and included his comments from last year, so non-inclusion of the IRA material shouldn't really be a concern now.--Gloriamarie (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gloriamarie you solved my concern, but I hope you can understand my point of view. Some editor below who decided to only bother to get involved in wiki after Jackson died says statements like this

"They are more controversial than the comments made about the IRA due to the highly public figure of Jackson."

If this editor wants I can arrange to have them come and visit with the thousands of families who lost or ended up with maimed love ones during the 30 years of troubles. They can personally ask the families whether a statement about one dead individual is more important that the lives of thousands. Tiocfaídh Ár Lá (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Various edits reverted

First of all Wikileaks. There is no evidence of a controversy. King's comments did not draw criticism from Joe Lieberman, he simply said that Wikileaks didn't fit the definition. That is not in itself criticism, and even if it did one politican criticisting another does not make a controversry in itself. Then there's "Critics have noted that King's attacks on WikiLeaks are in sharp contrast to his vocal support for the IRA, which (unlike WikiLeaks) has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization". The source cited makes no mention of this supposed criticism, and it isn't even true in the first place. The [Provisional] IRA are not, and have never been, designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. If there are reliable sources (not op/eds either) that actually provide evidence of a controversy over the comments let's see them here and see what can be written from them.

Secondly the IRA section. "[o]n his travels to Northern Ireland, King would stay with members of the IRA and spend his evenings in IRA drinking clubs, soaking up the atmosphere and, I dare say, enjoying the craic." says Massie, oh really? Was he there? How does he know? It already said he stopped supporting the IRA in 2003, but then we have the addition "however, King told a reporter that "'we shouldn't rush to be too sanctimonious' about the murder of Robert McCartney in a Belfast pub" about incidents in 2005. "'we shouldn't rush to be too sanctimonious'" is not a statement of support for the IRA, in itself it's meaningless. Like virtually every other addition to that section those were sourced by an op/ed, they really aren't any good for criticism of living people. I've reverted that section to its previous state.

Charlie Rangel section. There's absolutely zero evidence of a controversy surrounding this. King's coverage in the source cited is incidental, it's primarly about the vote itself while noting he voted against it. That is not evidence of a controversy in itself.

I've reaised this on BLPN due to the IP's edit warring to maintain dubious edits to other articles, as the depth of coverage of the controversies seems excessive and generally inappropriate for a neutral article about a living person. Cover the known (not ones seen as controversies by editors) controversies in a reasonable level of detail, but let's keep the details neutral and brief but covering all the relevant points. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hackney. This is a biography of a living person, not a gossip page. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I see we have another attempt to manufacture a controvery, using these sources:

• [1] - a source which does not even mention Peter T. King except in the URL.
• [2] - a source which says what King says and Lieberman's measured response. No evidence of controversy or criticism.
• [3] - A source which does not even mention Peter T. King.
• [4] - A source which mentions Lieberman's measured response. No evidence of controversy or criticism.

So to so up, for the second time, there's no evidence of a controversy. Editors should cease trying to invent one, especially as this is a BLP.

Regarding the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame story, there's equally no evidence of controversy worthy of note in a BLP. All there is for sourcing is a radio station reporting on an interview it broadcast, which gives King minor coverage in the article. Considering Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are married it's hardly surprising surprising he doesn't think highly of King, so his obviously biased opinion hardly equates to a controversy.

Material removed per BLP stays out until there is consensus for inclusion, and manufacturing controversies is clearly in violation of BLP. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting(directly below) that we remove the "controversies" heading but not necessarily all of the contents of the section; some of which may be interwoven into the BLP. Directly above in this "various edits reverted" section, the word "controversy" is used 13 times by just 1 Editor; so the word,"controversy", is having the effect(perhaps not by intent) of being a Straw man to justify deleting all RS content which happened to be placed under the "controversies" heading. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Get Rid of the "Controversies" Heading

I propose we do as suggested by an Editor at ANI: "Good editorial practice and therefore the Manual of Style should say that "Controversy" sections should not be written. Instead, the information should be interwoven into the article. If the information cannot be, then that is a pretty good sign that it doesn't belong in the first place." Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks

There's no reason to keep out what King has said about WikiLeaks is there? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC) I've added some content. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You are attempting to manufacture a controversy, which is in violation of BLP. The material has been removed per BLP, do not reinsert it without consensus. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't speak for me. I do not think any of this is a controversy or controversial. What the Subject says is what I think is important and notable.I have no interest at all in interpreting the effect nor intent of what he is saying. I made a mistake by putting this content under a heading of "controversies"; that will never happen again. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ambassador Wilson/Valerie Plame

Both Wilson and Plame identify King's the importance of King's speeches about the Plame affair. This has to be in the BLP. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Where are the independent sources that establish it as a controversy? The material has been removed per BLP, do not reinsert it without consensus. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be designated as a controversy; put it anywhere you like. I'm just saying that its notable,I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Page Protection Apparently for POV Retention

I have sent this to the Admin. who protected the BLP.

I'm new to the BLP, looks to me as if its being tightly controled by Editors loyal to the Subject and that the request for full protection, done 3 minutes after the Requester made the page the way he wanted it, 16:07, 20 December 2010 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ‎ (Requesting full protection of Peter T. King. (TW)) 16:04, 20 December 2010 (diff | hist) Peter T. King ‎ (Undid revision 403364488 by 128.253.237.77 (talk)---Please discuss on talk page.)

Request for page protection was apparently part of that pov effort. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I request that this Reliably Sourced content (the 2 sections below),which was removed 3 minutes before the request for Full Protection, be placed back into the BLP: Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I am opposed to these suggested edits, and it has nothing to do with being partisan on behalf of Mr. King or attempting to impose a POV. Why don't you address the issues raised above rather than attacking fellow editors and asking for information that violates BLP to be added to the article? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks

King has called for Wikileaks to be designated as a foreign terrorist organization, in order to "give the U.S. government authority 'to seize their funds and go after anyone who provides them with any help or contributions or assistance whatsoever.'"[5] This statement drew criticism from Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee and himself a vociferous critic of the whistle-blowing organization. Lieberman argued that "WikiLeaks does not fit the definition of a 'traditional' terrorist group like Al-Qaeda.While it's true that what WikiLeaks did may result in damage to some people, ... it's not Al-Qaeda. Normally we reserve that designation for groups that fit the traditional definition of terrorism, which is that they are using violence to achieve a political end."[6]

Joe Wison/Valerie Plame

Ambassador Joe Wison claims that King "was one of the mouthpieces of the Republican right, that was out there trying to make this whole story about me rather than about their sixteen words, their lies to the American people. So I think Peter King is not credible as a spokesperson on this particular matter(WikiLeaks)."[7] On MSNBC Scarborough Country in 2005 King refused to say that leaking Valerie Plame's name was wrong:

• Scarborough:But, again, all I am saying is, that doesn't justify releasing Valerie Plame's name, does it?
• KING: Well, she was involved in it. She was the one who recommended him and sat there silently while all these lies are being propagated by Joe Wilson. And, also, we still don't know if she was undercover or not at the time or for the previous five years.[8]

IRA

There is some more details about Rep. King's IRA statements that caused controversy. He once referred to an IRA assassination as a "pub dispute"[9], and according to the New York Sun newspaper when President Ronal Reagan visited Nassau county for the Special Olympics in 1984, King was added to a watchlist as a threat.[10] I think these should be added to the IRA controversies section of the page. BrotherSulayman (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"IRA assassination" ROFLMAO!!! No, it wasn't an IRA assasination it was a fight in a pub caused by comments over a woman, nothing to do with politics. Try the Irish Independent, BBC, New York Daily News or better still the BBC article which says "It is understood police are treating the incident as a pub fight". Re the second part, I don't particularly regard Ed Moloney as credible for that particular claim, due to blatantly poor fact checking. There were no Special Olympics in Nassau County in 1984, there were however the International Games for the Disabled which are a diferent thing entirely. If Moloney can't even get the basic facts right, why is his claim credible? Where has it come from? I've looked on Google Books and Google Scholar and can't find where this claim has come from. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"He stopped supporting the IRA after being offended by Irish public opposition to the [2003] invasion of Iraq, labelling it as begrudgery rather than suspicion of and opposition to the war." - in fact he stopped somewhere between the 1998 Belfast Agreement and 9/11. His contradictory positions on terrorism boil down to this - he has a lot of Irish constituents and very few Muslim ones.86.42.195.203 (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the discussion about the IRA is only references to third party editorials. It does not sufficiently meet Wikipedia criteria for factual, unbiased information. Additionally, significant portions of the citations appear only to exist to discredit King on his points of view and activities regarding the topic of Muslim radicalization. While such points of view are legitimate argument, they are no bearing on the actual facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.118.119 (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else find it suspicious that most of the people contributing to the IRA portions have to have names like "Sulayman?" It seems that Muslims, a bit miffed about his outspoken views on the "Religion of Peace" have found a bone to pick. Too bad The total body count for the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland is less than the amount of people killed on 9/11. Also, Islamic "scholars" would do well to note that the PIRA targeted military installations and economic areas rather than civilians. They would do even better to recognize that there are about 30 different incarnations of the IRA with varying degrees of legitimacy, but with the original IRA being as legitimate as the American founding fathers. 98.114.206.141 (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Are we here to whine about 9/11? I'm sure we all feel sorry for that King lost a few of his voters at Ground Zero. I thought the worst thing you could do about the founding fathers, is to put Mr Washington on a $1 bill. Now he is compared to the IRA. By 1922, half the IRA got slammed in by Eamonn De Valera, so he had no opinions on legitimacy. So maybe Eamonn was just slightly right wing, but never ate any freedom fries. --85.164.221.69 (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The original IRA were just cowardly terrorists who get the violent deaths they deserved. I hope Peter King gets cancer. (92.7.15.189 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC))

Cancer will not dare to touch him. --85.164.221.69 (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I've requested a change to semi-protection. There were no 3rr events and 1 of the 3 involved Editors was an Anon. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

1 of the 4 editors involved, since you added back material removed per BLP without discusion. Why not try replying at Talk:Peter T. King#Various edits reverted, since you haven't bothered yet? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a picture of a snort quantity of cocaine on your talk page? and a (albeit humourous attempt,perhaps) photo referencing execution of British Members of Parliament on your User page? I ask because the answers may impact upon my willingness to engage in discussion with you.Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What gives you the right to make these kinds of inquiries? Discuss the issues at hand and leave personal comments and questions out. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, not to mention that his/her "2 lines of K" moniker directly above, is in some circles is a reference to illegal Ketamine drug usage.

His answers will,obviously, have a bearing on whether I should be having any discussions with him at all. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

MOSQUOTE

{{editprotected}} Per WP:MOSQUOTE guidelines could someone please change the {{cquote}} templates in this article to {{quote}}. Thanks --Errant ^(chat!) 16:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is urgent, so request that you make the edit yourself when protection expires. I know this issue is contentious and so this request is possibly controversial. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will make the edit. It shouldn't be controversial though. There is red lettering on some of the templates chastising people for getting it wrong :P --Errant ^(chat!) 19:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Wikileaks mention

Are there any objections to this insertion? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

King has called for Wikileaks to be designated as a foreign terrorist organization, in order to "give the U.S. government authority 'to seize their funds and go after anyone who provides them with any help or contributions or assistance whatsoever.'"[11] [12]

I'll put it in for now since no objections have been voiced. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If King says you are a terrorist, there is no way you can argue against an expert.--85.164.221.69 (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A rose by any other name is still a rose

Despite being told that any "controversial" information needed to be incorporated into the existing article, I see we now have an attempt to create a "Comments and Positions" section which consists entirely of material designed to portray King in a negative light. There is not even an attempt at neutrally conveying his positions and comments, the entire section is slanted against King by cherrypicking ones designed to portray him negatively. Therefore regardless of what title you put on the section, it's still a "controversies" section. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Worse still, it makes all his comments and positions look controversial, unlike the previous format which dealt with controversies in isolation from each other.

While the version I have reverted to may not be perfect, it is far less contentious than the version I have reverted from. A bold attempt has been made, I have reverted, and now discussion takes place. I will also add that your proposal above did not mention the massive restructuring of the article you have done in order to shoehorn the information in, and that there is no deadline and it's unreasonable to expect instant replies at this time of year. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Could you please address the proposal directly above concerning including 1 sentence concerning King's WikiLeaks comments/position?
• Have you considered adding what you consider to be material which portrays the Subject in a positive light? I personally see nothing negative about the Subject's positions; straightforward..yes; negative..no.
• Instead of reverting all of my effort, why don't you try re-writing it yourself? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Tagging

There is a history of neutrality concerns expressed on this discussion page and archives of this page by numerous Contributors. Symptomatic of the issue is that there is no legitimate reason I can think of why 3 lines of K excludes 1 sentence about King's comments about WikiLeaks other than he somehow thinks it portrays King in a negative light; a hypothesis which he does not explain and which I do not agree with. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Every man and his dog is commenting on Wikileaks. What specifically about King's comments/view makes it significant to his biography? Remember, we are here to record a biography, not every minuscule and insignificant detail of his life and career. And as I have explained before to you... this is something of a misuse of the tag... I'd encourage you to remove it, there seems no neutrality issue. If I tagged articles every time there was content I wanted to add but consensus stood against the place would be littered ;) It is bad rhetoric to use a tag to push an argument and does nothing to help --Errant ^(chat!) 21:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I will remove it out of respect for your opinion, but I do not understand because:

• There is no consensus for not mentioning WikiLeaks and it is extremely well Reliably Sourced.
• This is part of the WikiLeaks article:"Peter King, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee of the United States House of Representatives has stated his support for listing Wikileaks as a "foreign terrorist organisation" explaining that "WikiLeaks presents a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States." so I do not understand why it would not be even more notable for King's BLP. The sentence I suggested was even shorter.
• Did you review this article discussion history? 68.194.217.223, Alensha,.Seola, Tiocfaídh Ár Lá,- Rockyobody, Fifty7,Vaudedoc have all expressed concern about the BLP's neutrality. In effect, over half the Editors who have commented on this discussion page have expressed those concerns.
• 2 lines of K just today reinserted a blatantly misleading heading "Anti-Islam comments" which was a totally false and inflammatory depiction of King's actual comments he had under that heading.

I think we have a very odd neutrality issue here wherein a few Editors have been, not intentionally, expressing their own pov that Reliable Sourced comments by the Subject are in some way damaging to the reputation of the Subject so they put their own negative characterizations onto those comments and then use those manufactured characterizations as reason to exclude RS content from the BLP; the recent "Anti-islam" characterization is 1 very clear example, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are the reasons why I think the tag is justified, + the active Editor(s) here does not support even a small inclusion of King's widely published and important (given his Homeland Security authority) views on WikiLeaks. If noone else supports that inclusion nor the need for a tag, then so be it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's worth reading the thoughts on {{POV}}, the idea of the tag is to identify a specific neutrality issue, raise it on the talk page and discuss it. If the discussion dies out the tag is removed (for example) because it is not a badge of shame. This tag is a prompt to tell editors there is an active discussion they may be able to help with - and to encourage them to check the talk page prior to making edits etc. It is not to note that the article may be non-neutral. To take an example; 68.194.217.223 comments are from 2009 ;) so hardly current and ongoing! On the Wikileaks thing; I've no real thoughts either way. It strikes me as a little bit trivial (both here and in the Wikileaks article). He does seem to have said a lot more about Wikileaks, going on those sources, so I would avoid picking any particular quote and just state that he criticised and called to prosecute WL's or something. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Iwas actually searching for it earlier but failed(i was searching npov).

Proposal

King criticized the activities of WikiLeaks and suggested that they be designated a "terrorist organization" and treated as such by U.S. agencies.

Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of objections I'll add the proposed sentence. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

JihadWatch

I think this edit[13] introduces non-notable material. If the opinion of JihadWatch was notable on this particular issue, then it'd be quoted by a news source. Any website can put its opinions up, without much editorial oversight.VR _talk 03:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Congressional hearings

Appears that the Anti-King interests want to editorialize here. Through their own content, as well as linking to editorials against King that offer uncited "facts". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.118.119 (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jackson section

Foolishness. One day's news. Completely forgotten. Not encyclopedic. 129.10.172.67 (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It caused a massive stir at the time, was widely reported for days afterwards, and King was saying what most peope were thinking. (92.7.17.6 (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC))

King labeled the media-run as a time of political correctness. Since I can't argue against an expert, I will be eating some freedom fries for dinner. --85.164.221.69 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

BinLaden + Waterboarding

He went on Bill O'Reillys show an claimed that waterboarding let to finding BinLaden. I never heard any reliable independent source to support that claim. But I am also not deep enough in the subject and a little "biased" when it comes to the use of torture (still pissed because he didn't call it what it is). Can somebody please extend the article with detailed information? I consider it relevant because it was (as far as I know) the first source claiming torture let to BinLaden. Jschoder (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)