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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)