Talk:Peter Kinder

WP:BLP problems and the infotainment approach to reporting on politicians

I'm sorry, a politician making a pass or going to a stripper bar is not notable. Unless this somehow affected his career, random salicious factoids are for gossip columns, not for encyclopedias. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Kinder the the Penthouse Pet

Referenced material about Kinder and Penthouse Pet keeps getting reverted by the same person (latest example). This story is making enormous news in Missouri and is covered by all daily newspapers. It is particularly relevant since Kinder is expected to run for governor.Americasroof (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW if you don't believe try a google http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=Peter+Kinder

Americasroof (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Any given night that J. Random Politician is attending at a stripper bar, there's got to be many registered voters also in attendance. Is there a law against stripper bars in Missouri? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Note is very clear on what is notable on Wikipedia and reliable third party coverage is the central tenant. The material is referenced and has received wide publicity even outside Missouri (e.g., The Washington Post). You are deleting because you personally do not think it's notable. That's not the policy. My entry which you deleted included his denial. The story had developed legs. In my edit at least it gave both sides. By deleting it altogeher, it smacks that the article is being censored. Wikipedia is not censored.Americasroof (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not censorship, it's just relevancy - what does it matter if he goes to nudie bars? Unless this somehow affects the decisions he makes; presumably his constituents elected him as their representative and are cool with it. It would only be encyclopedia-worthy if his after hours behavior somehow had an influence on politics. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's your opinion vs. wikipedia policy. Sex scandals are bread and butter of politics (and in this case there's something of a celebrity involved) but you are trying to change the world. I have no idea why you're trying to protect this guy in this manner. The upshot is that you are making it look like censorship. I at least quoted his denial. It will raise flags if it's not in the story.Americasroof (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If sex scandals (what sex, exactly?) are the bread and butter of politics, they are not notable. I just don't see the encyclopediac purpose in rehashing the muck-slinging of any random campaign unless it has a notable outcome. If we could find a third-party commentator saying so-and-so has no hope of being Governor because of the allegations of impropriety during his campaign, that might be suitable for inclusion here. But the parry and thrust of titillating newspaper headlines, without any analysis, is pointless here. We're not writing news, we're writing an encyclopedia. We should try and take a little more long-term point of view as to what is significant in describing a person's life. Reciting the headlines is not enough; we need some analysis as to the significance of the headlines. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless something is definitivly proven and it affects his politics, I have to agree with Wtshymanski, I'd have reverted the edits myself if Wtshymanski hadn't beaten me to it. --Skier23 (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This article as currently written is an appalling puff piece almost 100 percent copied word for word from his official biography including a spectacularly long and boring list of "awards." No criticism is permitted of him even though his antics and question about his character have garnered considerable headlines in Missouri and around the country. Check out http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56457.html (which was written before the Penthouse stuff). A candidate for governor should be open to discussion if the comments come from reputable third party sources. These are all issues that are going to be raised over and over in a campaign. But since Wikipedia is being censored you won't hear about it here. I at least included a quote from him about the matter.Americasroof (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we get a documented third-party source commenting on the influence that his behavior has on his campaign? Otherwise we're just repeating the muck slinging, which is not a notable part of any political campaign. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it would be of great encyclopediac value if we could obtain a (GFDL-license) naked picture here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Counties in Election

It seems like an irrelevant detail that Kinder carried a high number of counties in the general election- most rural counties are low in population and reliably Republican. The actual percentage margin of victory was relatively small, so the number of carried counties suggests a higher margin of victory than was actually achieved. This is a classic example of the modifiable areal unit problem. 50.58.204.5 (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I added that Kinder won by only about 1.5% of the votes cast. —ADavidB 17:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Bias and Puffery

There seems to be a quite a bit of bias and puffery in this article.

Particular examples

• Accomplishments include extraneous details which support Kinder's political positions.
• In the exotic dancer section critical positions are "alleged" and "claimed", while supportive views are "confirmed".
• Hotel section there is a brief criticism and a disproportionally lengthy justification.
• The Ferguson section appears more as an attack on Nixon than a statement of facts.

Dbsseven (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

To the extent information is not (or is not reliably) sourced, it may be removed or noted first as needing a citation (e.g. with {{citation needed}}). Additionally (and perhaps preferably), if reliably sourced alternative information is available, it should be added. —ADavidB 02:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Kinder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130720014459/http://stlbeacon.org/ to https://www.stlbeacon.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)