Talk:Peter T. King

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	Peter T. King is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
???	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."

	Peter T. King is part of WikiProject Notre Dame, which collaborates on articles related to the University of Notre Dame on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.

Contents 1 Religion and abortion 2 sources 3 Non-Compliance 4 Future plans 5 Dated, but relevant news item 6 Allegations of Racism

[edit] Religion and abortion

I've removed the sentence reading A devout Roman Catholic, he is also a House representative of the anti-abortion group Right to Life. As a simple matter of fact, it is inaccurate to say that a member of Congress literally represents any group other than the residents of his or her district. If you wish to convey that he is pro-life, just put that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.219.149 (talk • contribs)

[edit] sources

This article is very in-depth for the amount of external sources it cites. I don't see any now for the support of the IRA, or many of the other claims in this article, though none of them are potentially libelous. M i c 05:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Compliance

I edited out some of the libelous language from that criticisms paragraph, but it still needs to be cleaned up and watched for the remainder of the congressional race, at least. The criticisms are sourced, but need to be written in a NPOV format. Geekish 18:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future plans

I have a gut feeling that he will run for for statewide office in 2008 or 2010 since LI is trending Democratic. But he would be an almost certain loser unless he makes a hard left on abortion, especially if Roe v. Wade is overturned by then. Look at George Pataki, and John Faso. 216.179.123.201 20:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• The expected resignation of Eliot Spitzer would hardly help King's chances of becoming Governor, he's just too extreme. 216.179.123.111 (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dated, but relevant news item

Peter King: I'll Probe CIA 'Orgies' NewsMax.com, June 2, 2006

--71.227.191.140 07:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Racism

This section seems pointless to me. Just because Congresswoman Waters believes that King is a racist and has done something racist in the past does not mean that it should be included in the article. The way it is set up implies that there is some kind of investigation into whether or not he is a racist when if you read the text of the interview that is sourced Waters offers no substance to back up her allegations. It's all rhetoric and hate speech against one man. She has nothing to support her claims other that the fact the "she knows how he has used her pictures in the past" and that is hardly solid evidence. To include would be like saying that just because Dennis Kucinich questions Bush's mental health because of his statements on Iran means that there should be a section in the Bush article called "Allegations of Mental Instability" backed up only by Kucinich's statements and nothing more. And to add such a section would be just as foolish as keeping the racism section in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.224.76 (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's one Representative accusing another Representative of being a racist. That is enough to be included in a section about controversy. Read the source and then try to continue this pointless editing. Hell, it's even biased in King's favor. Fifty7 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I did read the source and she has nothing to back up her statements. It is nothing bu rhetoric on her part. No evidence of racism other than that she "knows how he has used her picture in the past." That is hardly enough to make everyone think King is a racist. If someone else accuses him and has evidence than it has a point but as it stands it does not. And if the words of a Rep. should be taken at face value then King's counter-arguments on the source should cancel out her remarks and the section becomes unnecessary.