Talk:Peter King (American politician)/2008

Northern Ireland Peace Process

The section on the Northern Ireland Peace Process appears to have been written from a worryingly pro-IRA view without a great deal of citation, worrying because it is both a contentious issue and because Wikipedia is supposed to be a factual encyclopedia, not as an advertisement for Peter King nor as anti-Unionist propaganda. I've changed some of the terms to be more neutral and factual, but the overall POV of the section is still troubling. --69.123.112.18 (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Its an advertisement for him and should be removed as a whole. If there is anything important and sourced, it can be added to his congress section, but otherwise should be removed. - Rockyobody (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone obviously put a lot of time into the section. However it fails wiki guidelines, and I removed it. It is still available in the history though, and like I said earlier, anything important can be added to the appropriate section.. - Rockyobody (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Ever since Shortz415's edit, this has been essentially an advertisement for Congressman King. I think it should be addressed, but I don't want to act unilaterally on it, since such a significant change (even if it is a revert back to an objective article) could be considered vandalism merely due to the size of the article. -- Fifty7 (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Can anyone explain why phrases such as "worked tirelessly" or an unsupported "almost single-handedly" have found their way into this entry? If moderation and cites aren't present by Friday 07 January 2008 I'm going to begin going through and excising unsupported assertions and hagiographical material. --Vaudedoc (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I went through the first half of the article and added some cite tags for speculative or PoV material, though obviously the entire article needs more cites. Fifty7 is right: Shortz415's edits are almost entirely designed to laud King or rationalize his positions. In one edit, for example, s/he reverted an edit on Sein Fein's IRA links for an unneeded explication of it's break from the IRA. In fact, the only edits Shortz415 has made on WP are buffing up King's profile. I'll start going through this in a couple of days, but help would be appreciated. --Vaudedoc (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I will work over the next few days to provide the citations that come along with most, if not, all of my edits. One could make the argument that if I was truly boasting the Congressman, I would have removed the criticism section altogether instead of highlighting some and even, in some cases, expanding upon them. I am sure that through the editing and verification of these edits, we can come to a settlement on what we all deem to be a neutral article. [User:Shortz415|Shortz415]] (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Shortz415. Cites will certainly help. It's also a matter of phrasing, though. It's difficult to verify that someone "worked tirelessly" on something. It's lovely, picturesque phrasing, but also opinionated and imagistic in a way not usually found in encyclopedic entries. If one wanted to note that X% of the bills written by King involved a certain topic or that King visited Northern Ireland Y times in X years, that would be illustrative and helpful. Also, if you could find a quote by Clinton saying that King "worked tirelessly" that would do the job. Thanks so much for looking into all this. --Vaudedoc (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious there is bias from both sides. There were to references to blogs, and I have removed them. However, although I agree there is bias praising King, there is also bias with over criticism. Rockyobody (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I need some fair and honest answers here. How are Counting of Votes in Election 2004 and Camera Phone Predator Alert Act 2009 controversies? The first one has him making comments about an election which pretty much everyone agreed with, and has no source pointing to a controversy surrounding it. In the second one, it may be a controversy, but the link goes to a comment posted on website which cannot be counted as bad reception just because someone made a comment. I am removing them, and I may be wrong, but I need to know why they should be there. - Rockyobody (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to remove the controversy section as a whole. No doubt that both of those things can be considered legitimate controversies. But you need to source the criticism. If you say he was criticized by CAIR, find the source. I tried but could not find one. The only way to add the controversy section back is to source any and all criticism. - Rockyobody (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)