Talk:Steve King/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Photo

Added photo of the Congressman. --JGardner 15:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Added again. This time with the proper copyright info so that it will not be deleted. JGardner 18:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Now, with infobox! Graciously stolen from WikiProject US Congress. JGardner 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

Many of the viewpoints on Steve King are biased. I'll cite this as non-NPOV until someone fixes it. Aoeu 02:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a bit more? There are many things touched upon on this page. If it's solely the "controversies" section, I would have to disagree -- King is undoubtedly a controversial representative who has made innumerable provocative statements. I did find, however, a few misrepresentations in the introductory paragraph:
  1. Replaced "briefly attended Northwest Missouri State University" with the actual years of attendance. Four years of undergrad classes doesn't seem too brief to me.
He quit school before graduating, but after drawing a 308 in the Vietnam Draft_lottery_(1969).Jasendorf (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. Removed "was a construction worker". I've edited the page to reflect that Rep. King started a construction company in 1975.
The only other sentence in this page that I see as possibly non-NPOV is describing King as "extreme right-wing". I can't imagine anyone, however, disagreeing that he is a very conservative politician. Perhaps "extreme right-wing" could be replaced with something a bit less pejorative. Aside from that, does anyone have any other major problems with the neutrality of this entry? If not, I'm going to remove the NPOV disclaimer. --JGardner 06:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Non-NPOV disclaimer going once, going twice.. gone. --JGardner 01:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrected article, replacing facts that had been erroneously removed by a previous user who is either illiterate and can not read the sources or is embarrassed that he supports King and is trying to alter the facts to cover for him. Peitz408 13:35, 02 May 2006

I don't quite understand how the extensive coverage of his interactions with the draft is fair. The fact that any one person tried to do all they legally could to avoid being drafted in this era is hardly significant. If it is significant (such as if he adopted an interventionist stance on foreign policy despite avoiding the draft), it should be explained why that is so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npvezeau (talk • contribs) 04:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It is important to understand how it is outrageous that people enforce their own political agenda on Wikipedia. It is not only on this article, but for the entire site as well. I thought this was called Wikipedia, not Wikizine. As for the cover-up, censorship is just as deplorable as being one-sided. I am sorry for my comments I have said previously. Aoeu 00:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I accept many of the changes to the article - some of my work was poorly written. I do not accept the portion of the article regarding King's opposition to providing sexual health drugs on Medicare was 'unsubstatiated'. No doubt I am biased but I am in no way left-wing. I am British and take very little interest in American politics, however after hearing King's interview live on BBC Radio 4 I thought I should contribute. Aoeu's comment illustrates his or her individual bias far more than my style of journalism demonstrates my own. this article is very biased it was wrote by a very anti steve king nut.

-Hawkeye1066- Fifty7 has criticized clarifications I made to the paragraph concerning King's misuse of a GAO report to support his inaccurate and widely-detributed claims about supposed daily outrages by illegal immigrants. I tightened the language to make clearer that the very small group of federal inmates to whom the GAO report partly applied was far, far smaller than the group of state and local inmates to whom it did not apply, which in turn clarifies the extent of King's misreliance on the report. Fifty7 then "undid" and characterized my changes as "weasel words", which is completely inapplicable under any known definition of the phrase "weasel words".14:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye1066 (talk • contribs)

74.42.111.156 deleted my paragraphs detailing the gross inaccuracies in King's allegations about crime by illegal aliens, claiming that my text was "inaccurate in every way imaginable". In fact, my sources for all of King's statements and for all of my numerical data are clearly identified. 74.42.111.156 is a partisan vandal simply attempting to delete accurate material which shows King in a bad light. If 74.42.111.156 would like to try to detail what he feels to be inaccurate in the text I will be happy to debate it here. Hawkeye (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hawkeye1066 redid the paragraph about the illegal immigration statistics with a false presumption. He claims that King stated that "28% of all prisoners in all American jails and prisons are illegal aliens." He must have a source for that statement or all other information in that paragraph is innaccurate. I will wait for a source before I delete the paragraph again but if it isn't in there within a day or so, I will delete it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.42.111.156 (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

On May 27, 2006, King stated in a speech at the anti-immigrant "Wake Up America Summit" the following, and I quote exactly because I am transcribing it right now from a video of him at the mike:

"That GAO study that I had done, supports those numbers. I went through it thoroughly. Between the city, the county, the state and the federal penitentiaries that study, my study shows, 28% are criminal aliens."

He then goes on to explain that by "extrapolating" from that number he reaches the daily death totals from his list. So, he did claim exactly what I said he claimed, and I have on my hard drive a video of him saying it with his own mouth. And the footnote I have in my text is to a Colorado Media Matters page that contains both that quotation transcribed and a link to that video of King saying it at that convention. So, my statement was both accurate and already fully sourced when you deleted it.

Unfortunately, the Colorado Media Matters website is down for some reason this morning, so I can't give you the exact address of the video itself to view for yourself right now-- King makes the quoted statement between 11:35 and 11:47 in the video-- but I will be happy to provide it when the CMM site comes back online. Hawkeye (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the Colorado Media Matters site is shut down permanently, and I can't find the website that actually hosted the video of King's speech at the anti-immigration rally. I will instead point my footnote towards King stating the same claim in the Congressional Record on May 3, 2006:

"But the crimes that are committed by those who enter this country illegally are in significantly greater numbers than the crimes that are committed by American citizens, to the extent that 28 percent of the inmates in our prisons in the United States are criminal aliens, 28 percent. And that includes our city, our county, our State and our Federal penitentiaries. And they vary only 1 or 2 percent above or below, but they average 28 percent. [...] So we know that these numbers are low numbers, not high numbers. But it is certain that there are more. I am just not certain how many more. But I can stand on 28 percent."

I assume that will be sufficient documentation to prevent my text from being deleted again.

Notice that, as in his speech to the rally, King persistently confuses "illegal aliens" and "criminal aliens" because he clearly erroneously thinks those distinct terms mean the same thing, which is why I disambiguate them in my text. Hawkeye (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Medicare issue

"I accept many of the changes to the article - some of my work was poorly written. I do not accept the portion of the article regarding King's opposition to providing sexual health drugs on Medicare was 'unsubstatiated'. "

Nor should you. King has made his objection to providing Viagra, birth control pills, and even HIV medicaion through Medicare extemely clear on countless occasions. It's in the public record. There are position papers on it available on his website. I am not left-wing, either, but you can't spin the truth, especially when it comes from the Congressman's own public statements. 16:27, 22 June 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.107.128.181 (talk • contribs).

More info on his House term

We'll definitely need more info on what he's done as a Representative. I'm afraid someone will see this article and hack and slash it until the large "controversies" section is done away with, and I'm not for getting rid of it because it's supported by facts. To counteract that, there should definitely be an effort to fill out the Political positions and actions section. Fifty7 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Official biography

An editor has been copying in the subjec't officlal House biography from here.[1] While it is in the public domain (and so not a copyright violation) copying it without attribution is plagiarism. More seriously for Wikipedia, the material is not neutral. It was probably written by the subject or his staff. It can be used as a source, but we shouldn't copy from it wholesale.   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The editor in question is introducing highly POV, non-encyclopediac text and failing to provide proper citations for his or her assertions. The editor's new text should not be included in the article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to let y'all know that I reverted to a previous version of the page, as some wise-acre vandal had put in things like "Preceded by Osama bin Laden," changed King's official religion to "Muslim," and things like that. Hope you don't mind. raven2017 —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

Protection

I've locked the page temporarily because there appears to be a slow-motion edit war going on and the article is being reverted without any discussion. Involved editors should use this page to discuss the content issues and to seek consensus.   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the objection to including the section, "Remarks defending lobbyists" as a notable controversial statement? When has it ever been uncontroversial for a Rep. to openly advocate on behalf of lobbyists, to call them a "valuable source of information"? He's telling the American people that he trusts and is grateful to special interests, people with a profit motivation, and that he believes they deliver accurate, unbiased information which he is happy to base his votes upon. Seems quite controversial to me. Unless there is a reasonable explanation for why that is an uncontroversial statement, I will continue to include it in future edits and assume that anyone trying to remove it is doing so to improve King's public image. 99.41.167.118 (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is the honorific added by 24.3.220.206 still part of the current page? I can find no reason that Rep. Steve King should be considered "the honorable" and I assume this addition to his page is a joke. 99.41.167.118 (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Boromir has once again deleted the information that demonstrates King's numbers about crimes committed by illegal aliens are grossly inaccurate, claiming that this page isn't supposed to be about immigration statistics. However, he leaves in King's fake statistics, removing only my debunking of them.

If King's lying editorial remains in the article, my factual and appropriately-sourced rebuttal must also remain in. I will revert Boromir's edit again as soon as the protection is removed, and I will continue reverting it over and over and over again as many times as Boromir wants to attempt to hide the facts. Hawkeye (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hawkeye, perhaps we can remove King's quote altogether? His views on illegal immigration are already discussed.Boromir123 (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Boromir, if the entire reference to King's editorial is removed, my rebuttal would be unnecessary. If the editorial returns at some point in the future, though, so will my rebuttal. Hawkeye (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Without regard to the substantive dispute, "the honorable" is appropriate on the page of any Member of Congress. See Template:Infobox officeholder for instructions here. See also, e.g. Nancy Pelosi and Tom Latham. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, technically any congressperson can be called "the honorable", but does King actually prefer it over "representative"? If not, it doesn't seem relevant to his page. 99.41.167.118 (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course it is, Philosopher. Your formatting suggests that you intended that as a reply for me, but I wasn't the one who said it. That was '99.41.167.118'. Hawkeye (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for the confusion. I indented it to indicate that it was a separate comment (if each subsequent comment is indented one place, it makes the comments easier to read, imho), not that it was a reply to what you'd said. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
With regard to the editorial/rebuttal, I haven't read either but would note that the article is about Steve King, not about illegal immigration. A rebuttal of his view on illegal immigration would, therefore, likely be off topic. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Philospher, it was not a free-standing discussion about illegal immigration, it was a discussion about one of King's most well-known statements-- which certainly is relevant to an article about Steve King. King wrote an editorial a few years back about illegal immigration, which centered on the numbers of Americans supposedly subjected to various crimes by illegal immigrants. King claimed to have based it on a GAO report. I traced his claims, and in actual fact King 'based' it on one number in that GAO report which he evidently misunderstood at the time, then later misremembered the number he had misunderstood, then misapplied the misremembered number to an unrelated set of crime statistics to produce a final set of numbers that were sheer fantasy. Regrettably, those fake numbers have now become a standard, often-repeated false factoid wielded (usually referencing King as the 'authority' behind them) by other anti-immigrant writers and speakers. What Boromir and I have been disputing is that the portion of King's editorial containing those fake numbers is currently quoted in its entirety in the article. I feel strongly that if those numbers are presented, then a clear and specific demonstration that those numbers are false must also be included. If all reference to King's fake figures are removed, then I am perfectly happy for my rebuttal to also be removed. Hawkeye (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments regarding Agriculture Bill

The Rachel Maddow Show [2] ran footage of SK saying that a settlement of a billion dollars to Black farmers was some sort of slavery reparations. What are we supposed to do with a guy who makes so many outrageous statements time after time? We cannot ignore them, but if we list them all, the article reads like some sort of retrospective newspaper column. Further, if we simply report what people like this say, we are accused of lacking NPOV. This guy is not the worst case I have seen, but we need some sort of policy. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop playing to the hyperbole. If something recieves widespread coverage and is really notable than it should be included. If something has recieved coverage primarily from left bomb throwers like Maddow or Oblermann, than it should not be mentioned. Arzel (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is the actual quota from Steve King from House floor

"Figure this out, Madame Speaker: We have a very, very urban Senator, Barack Obama, who has decided he's going to run for president, and what does he do? He introduces legislation to create a whole new Pigford claim. We've got to stand up at some point and say, 'We are not gonna pay slavery reparations in the United States Congress.' That war's been fought. That was over a century ago. That debt was paid for in blood and it was paid for in the blood of a lot of Yankees, especially. And there's no reparations for the blood that paid for the sin of slavery. No one's filing that claim.... They're just filing a claim because they think they can get away with it."

-- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Remember WP:UNDUE and how easily articles can get bogged down with these kinds of mini-controversies, particularly considering that King is still relatively "new" compared to some of his House and Senate colleagues. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Sources are not invalidated just because you personally deem them "left bomb throwers". You're free to wear your ideology on your sleeve as you do, but please do not inject it into WP. -- 98.108.197.75 (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:ATTACK Page

Over half this article is supposed controversies infolving King. I have added a NPOV tag to the article. Arzel (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I would support their removal. They seem to be general opposition to his policies. His "Political Positions" section seem more appropriate place to outline his policies. Dukemeiser (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

IAVA

I removed the comment on John McCain's D from IAVA -- "For reference, former POW John McCain received a D in the same report." It seems misleading to me, since McCain's "D" primarily relates to votes he missed while campaigning, not situations in which he voted against IAVA. Not weighing in either way on whether he should've missed those votes, but it doesn't seem like it's an appropriate comparison for someone like King, whose grade reflects his votes and not his absences -- especially since Senators are graded on a somewhat different scale, since different bills came up in the Senate. If a comparison is needed, it looked to me from the report like a B was roughly the median grade -- maybe something like that would be an appropriate comment, but I'm not going to go count. I think comparison to Iowa's other representatives is sufficient, personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstinchcombe (talk • contribs) 02:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

I see a long controversy section, but no indication from secondary sources why any of the material was controversial and who thought it was. I will remove or rework most of it unless a good reason is given not to. CENSEI (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Censei, I will not let you leave in King's fake statistics about alien crime while cutting out the data that plainly demonstrates that his statistics are fake. If you cut the debunking data out again, I will put it back in again. Hawkeye (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"Desert Eagle- 1, Raccoon- 0"??? Seriously? King refers to himself as "Desert Eagle"? Hawkeye (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No, he was referring to the weapon used to kill the raccoon. A Desert Eagle is a type of handgun. 99.41.167.118 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look at most other Wikipedia articles about politicians there is a section entitled Political views not Controversies because Controversies might imply his views are generally not accepted and therefore wrong. An example of bias is the quote and the source for the section under Controversies entitled "King says profiling is important for law enforcement" the source link "(36)" is from a arguably partisan news website, but putting that aside is factually incorrect the quote "King said he was a victim of profiling for years, because taxi drivers would stop for him before he had to hail a cab, just because he was a white man in a suit" from the Wikipedia article directly conflicts from what he said in the speech before congress as seen in this YouTube video "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMuuMZH4gWw&feature=related" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kain77502 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

CENSEI, I think it's fair to say that Rep. King is a controversial figure. He says and does things that many people find incendiary, which is, I think, relevant information about Representative King. Further, I think it's fair for an encyclopedic article to point this out, and the most neutral way for an article to show controversial information is to identify the information as controversial in some way. I'm actually surprised that the article doesn't contain anything about King's comparison of homosexuality to incest in April of 2009. "http://iowaindependent.com/13726/steve-kings-homosexuality-incest-comparison" I could only find a partisan source -- the Iowa Independent -- but I have no qualms with quoting a partisan source when talking about partisanship. C. Michael Saul 14:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmichaelsaul (talk • contribs)

It seems like most of the "Controversies" are just issues about which Democrats disagree with him. The Judge Retention issue was a view that the majority of Iowans agreed with (since they all were voted out). Is it still a controversy if the majority agrees? Dukemeiser (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A controversy is only a controversy if described as such by neutral, reliable sources. Anything else is an editor expressing his/her particular biases and POV. Most of the items should be described as positions. Lionel (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
What about his remarks in the aftermath of a terrorist attack on the IRS, saying that he could empathize with the man responsible? Sources - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33361.html (I had another link from Examiner.com that Wikipedia won't let me post). Seems this qualifies for a controversy, given the flack he took for it.(69.140.34.22 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC))

Steve King's Statements Concerning the Legality of Child Abduction

King's video of August 1, 2012, in response to the recent controversy over dog fighting notably included the following statements, which purport to describe US federal law on child abduction and forced abortion:

"Whenever we start to elevate animals above humans, we’ve crossed a moral line. For example, when there’s a sexual predator out there, who has impregnated a young girl, say a 13-year-old girl — and it happens in America more times than you or I would like to think — that sexual predator can take that girl off the playground of a middle school, and haul her across a state line, and force her to get an abortion to eradicate the evidence of his crime, and bring her back and drop her off at the swing set. And that’s not against the law in the United States."

The video can be found in many places, such as here:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/01/622881/steve-king-responds-dogfighting/

The video does not capture King misspeaking or dropping some passing innuendo. The video was created by Steve King himself, and it can reasonably be assumed to represent his true opinions about the legality of the practices he describes in such carefully prepared and scripted detail.

The Wikipedia article on Steven King surely must include at least some reference to this video and to King's outright denial that abducting, raping, and forcing abortion upon a thirteen year-old girl is "not against the law in the United States."

These statements are unquestionably of material relevance to King's political career and opinions. To exclude any mention of them would be indefensible. The Wikipedia article should, at very least, be revised to include the block quotation above.

Please will someone do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefoster (talk • contribs) 05:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Colbert Report showed two of King's videos.
1. The first expressed his outrage against a proposed law that would make it illegal to watch animal fighting.
2. In his follow-up video, created a week later, he defended himself after the animal protection community rose up (especially the Humane Society). This is the video in which he made those above statements. He stated firmly that it wasn't illegal in the United States for a sexual predator to abduct a 13 year old from a school playground, impregnate her, drive her across the state line, force her to have an abortion, and return her to her playground. Clear and irrefutable evidence in his own words along with Colbert's dumbfounded response: http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/tue-august-7-2012-mark-shriver Wordreader (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
More references:
YouTube "Rep. Steve King (R-IA) Clarifies Statements On Dog Fighting"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKJ7oVy20eo&feature=player_embedded#at=68
Think Progess "Steve King Defends Dog Fighting Comments In Bizarre Diatribe"
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/01/622881/steve-king-responds-dogfighting/
Salon "What They’re Saying: Steve King is pro-dog fighting, anti-immigration"
http://www.salon.com/topic/immigration/
Wordreader (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Animal Issues

There have been several instances in which information regarding the senator's position on animal issues have been removed "due to inaccuracies" by unregistered users whose IP addresses originate from Denison IA, King's hometown. I have attempted to edit this section of the page to be more neutral but the changes continue to be removed.67.207.51.250 (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Added some details with minor references; the topic, for which King is now most well know, warrants both a mention in the lead, and a section in the document body. I encourage development by expanding the topic and adding additional references.Mavigogun (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
For more references to King's pro-animal fighting views, see my post on this date in the section immediately above. They are tied to his unfortunate child abduction statement. Wordreader (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Protect Interstate Commerce Act (Amendment to Farm Bill)

Rep. King's amendment to the Farm Bill, PICA, has its opponents and proponents - there is a possibility of an NPOV section that discusses both sides (Humane Society of the United States, vs most Agricultural associations, plus some legitimate discussion of the constitutionality of State laws banning products from other States) - could we please agree on an explanation of what it IS, then a pro and con?--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Congressman outflanks the Animal Rights Movement--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

|Text of the King Amendment Amendment to Tile XII of H.R. 6083 (aka King Amendment)

SEC. 12308. PROHIBITION AGAINST INTERFERENCE BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH PRODUCTION OR MANUFACTURE OF ITEMS IN OTHER STATES.

  • (a) In General- The government of a State or locality therein shall not impose a standard or condition on the production or manufacture of any agricultural product sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce if--
    • (1) such production or manufacture occurs in another State; and
    • 2) the standard or condition is in addition to the standards and conditions applicable to such production or manufacture pursuant to--
      • (A) Federal law; and
      • (B) the laws of the State and locality in which such production or manufacture occurs.
    • (b) Agricultural Product Defined- In this section, the term ‘agricultural product’ has the meaning given such term in section 207 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1626).

For good measure, the McGovern amendment, which also passed but by a slim majority (King voting against)

SEC. 12303. PROHIBITION ON ATTENDING AN ANIMAL FIGHT OR CAUSING A MINOR TO ATTEND AN ANIMAL FIGHT.

  • Section 26(a)(1) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156(a)(1)) is amended by striking the period and inserting ‘or to knowingly attend or knowingly cause a minor to attend an animal fighting venture.’.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Slapped down by his own leader

Speaker John Boehner has condemned King's "hateful language" on immigration."John Boehner condemns Steve King drug runner comments."

Restore to article? Hcobb (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Why? WP is not a newspaper. Arzel (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
What are ya talking about?! Hcobb linked to Politco and it *is* a newspaper. And I linked to http://www.agri-pulse.com/House-ag-committee-passes-farm-bill-05152013.asp, which is also a newspaper. We should restore the hateful language and agri stuff! If you keep bringing up nonsense that just shows you're not paying attention, I'm just gonna tune you out entirely. MilesMoney (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
WP is not a newspaper, we don't report on everything as if WP was a newspaper. There has to be some historical context, which you seem to not understand. Arzel (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's getting widely reported.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-boehner-denounces-steve-king-immigration-20130725,0,3131746.story

Hcobb (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be added..This is becoming a huge controversy.Casprings (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
huge controversy? You need to get out more :), just saying. --Malerooster (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you were talking about the animal fighting thingy, sorry. Still not sure if this is a huge controversy, maybe revisit in a year and see if it still has legs or anybody cares.--Malerooster (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Rape comments

I wonder if it's worth including that King recently defended representative Todd Akin over his comments on rape, saying 'he'd never heard of' a child becoming pregnant through rape or incest: [3] Robofish (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a bunch of BS. King did not defend Akin's comments, he specifically stated that he was not defending Akin over those statements. These attempts to tar and feather everyone are getting quite old quite fast. Arzel (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
if you want to make good faith edits to bring other viewpoints, so be it. But wholesale removal of sourced material is troubling.Casprings (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Your attempt to link King to Akin is even more troubling. King was asked about Akin's comments and he stated that he was personally unaware of a situation like that. He did NOT defend Akin's comments, and your attempts to imply that he did are sickining. Arzel (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
If I am misrepresenting what WP:RS are saying, please provide edits that are WP:NPOV. Otherwise, please do not remove sourced material. WP:CENSOR.Casprings (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
You are writing the section as if he is defending the remarks. How many times do I have to repeat that to you? King did no such thing, and he is not personally involved in any controversy. Leave your WP:COATrack at the door. Arzel (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
He defended Akin. Second, his remarks were picked up and became controversial. It is sourced to WP:RS. Please stop removing sorced material. Casprings (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
He did NOT defend Akin's comments, what is your problem? Arzel (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
He said what he said, whether he was defending Akin or not, so I put it back. Folks can decide for themselves, if we let them read what he said. I also put back some other stuff that was true but needed better refs. MilesMoney (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Since MilesMoney is a new user, probably an explanation of WP:BLP is in order. Certainly, it is possible to say King was generally supportive of Akin (and that is in), he was very careful NOT to endorse the controversial Akin comments; you can't say he did, and you can't cite non-WP:RS like Maddowblog or ThinkProgress or TPM. Inserting something like that is a WP:BLP violation, and the edit can be removed by anyone without restriction, whereas re-inserting it is grounds for blocking an editor. Similarly, manufacturing the question King was asked about abortion exceptions, particularly since the one WP:RS does not, and only non-WP:RS do this, is also a WP:BLP violation, and subject to sanctions. WP:BLP (see above for rules) is a high standard, and cannot be violated, even by consensus. Just as an FYI, the Animal Cruelty section has similar problems, but in that case there may be WP:RS, you just have to find and cite them (with what THEY say), and distinguish WP:RS opinion (eg. the Humane Society rating is probably OK as opinion) from WP:RS fact.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Humane Society by itself is not sufficient for WP:WEIGHT. That some group is pissed off about an amendment to a bill which recieved no real coverage is overweight for the article. Arzel (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
True, by itself, it would not be a section, but King's amendments to Farm Bills, mostly concerning inter-State commerce, HAVE been reported on, and it might be possible to construct a section (King is from a farm State, and Agricultural issues are important to his district) which could include the Humane Society critique, just not the section that was deleted.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Let's take the issues one at a time. Anonymous, you said we "can't say he did", but we're not saying anything at all. We're just quoting his exact words. What could be wrong with that?
About the animal stuff, every last bit is accurate and supported by references, so why do you keep erasing it? MilesMoney (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Miles; Problem with the "rape" comments is not the quote, but the made up question. You can't say he never heard about "anyone" or "victims" in general, when he wasn't being asked about anything general. The local reported who was interviewing King had a whole, very, very, very pointed set of "what if" questions and followups to King, trying to come up with an exception his opposition to automatic checkoffs for federal funding of abortions. She found an example that was sufficiently obscure that King acknowledged he might have to consider rewriting language in the bill(a major coup for a local reporter), and that was what the local news lead with. The "that" that King was referring to was the "that" in the reporter's question, not what TPM or ThinkPRogress want to claim it was. That is why neither of those can be used as WP:RS; they have no policy of fact-checking. Hope that helps.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, you said "use talk to discuss" and threw away my changes. Well, I was here already but you're not, so where do you get off? Until *you* use talk to discuss, I'm putting things right back to the way they were before you started erasing them. MilesMoney (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, you said "use talk to discuss" and threw away my changes. Well, I was here already but you're not, so where do you get off? Until you follow your own advice, I think you should back off and leave the article alone. MilesMoney (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder for opinion. Part of the animal stuff is original research as to what the effect would be. That the Humane Society put out a press release is not notable by itself unless it is picked up by other sources for some weight. The minor and ridiculous chicken fighting section is linked to Think Progress and the Colbert Report and those are simply not reliable sources for anything. Find some additional sourcing to provide some weight and such that you don't violate NPOV. Arzel (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Accuracy is matching our refs, no matter what we personally believe. I don't know or even care about pigs, but I know what the newspapers say, and that's what we should be saying.
You gave no reason for removing the paragraph starting with "Specifically", which refs a California government site. I don't know why you think that the Humane Society's press release isn't notable, but you're wrong because it was picked up by news sources like http://article.wn.com/view/2013/05/16/Congressional_Votes_on_Farm_Bill_Bring_Good_News_Bad_News_fo/#/related_news.
You also cut the whole "Animal fighting bill" section, even though it cited the Humane Society and Think Progress, both of which are used as reliable sources all over the place. If you really don't like these sources, improve them. You could have just added http://www.agri-pulse.com/House-ag-committee-passes-farm-bill-05152013.asp to back up what the HS was saying.
As for the Colbert Nation web site, it's the actual video of Colbert talking about King, which makes it a primary source. If you want a secondary, I found http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/08/1117889/-Stephen-Colbert-rips-apart-Rep-Steve-King-s-R-IA-pro-animal-torture-stance or http://voices.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/2010/09/stephen_colbert_comes_face_to.html.
Bottom line, we've got plenty of refs; you just don't like them. MilesMoney (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Miles; a little better. I would tend to be OK with the Agri-Pulse ref, it is a news reporting service, and WP:RS for facts, but the others are not, particularly since they merely state that Colbert did a bit on his show. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but we already know what Colbert did because his web site has the full video. The secondary sources are to show that what he did matters and to let us use their interpretations instead of making up our own. Without that, it would be us making something out of nothing. MilesMoney (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Colbert is a comedy show, please don't confuse what he does with real news. Unless some other sources make something of it, it is undue weight. Colbert makes fun of people on a nightly basis, by your logic all of them would be worthy of inclusion simply because we "know" what he did. Think Progress is a far left progressive site, far too biased in itself to be a neutral conveyor of information. The fact that there is little in the main stream press regarding this shows that it does not meet the weight requirements. Another was of saying this is that if this is the standard for inclusion, the article would be full of minor crap, and given the biased nature of this kind of crap, the article would look like an WP:ATTACK page. Arzel (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Thinkprogress can be used as a WP:RS. Per, WP:SPS, "any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." . According to the About page[4], they have a staff of credentialed editors and writers.Casprings (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
They have people who write. They have people who are the managers or sections. They cannot possibly be regarded as WP:RS, if they are, then, since I am both a writer and an "editor" on WP, everything I write can be considered WP:RS, and I don't need other sources. Makes my life much easier, but is ridiculous, and I don't do ridiculous.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure where you got that information from SPS because a search of SPS does not show any of that. TP by itself is simply not a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of the writers. It cannot be used for factual presentation of anything, and if TP is the primary group complaining it is vastly undue weight. Arzel (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The Colbert Show is a reliable primary source on the topic of what appeared on the Colbert Show. The secondary sources are reliable on the topic of what news organizations consider important, such as Colbert making fun of King.
I've been reading up on the rules for sources and this is totally legit. What Casprings said about TP is also true. The real problem I'm seeing here is you: you're stone-walling and edit-warring. You just gotta stop. Now. MilesMoney (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The Colbert report is not a reliable source for what King said or did. If you beleive that a comedy show and a far left website are good sources than you need to stop editing WP right now. Casprings does you no service by misrepresenting what WP policies are, he/she is simply upset with me for a different topic. Arzel (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Colbert is reliable for what Colbert said about King, and that's all we're using it for. I put it all back, along with the refs we talked about here. Find a new excuse for erasing it, m'kay? MilesMoney (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Colbert is a comedian. He does a comedy show, that crap is not encyclopedic. Furthermore, you continue to use non-reliable sources and then you included the Daily Kos? Would you please take your activism elsewhere. Arzel (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Colbert is a journalist, you're a comedian. He won two Peabody **Journalism* awards. How many do you got, bozo? MilesMoney (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Your personal attacks are noted. You apparently are not capable of editing WP properly. I suggest you find something better to do with your time. Arzel (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going anywhere. Get used to it. Oh, and "bozo" refers to "comedian"; it's not a personal attack. MilesMoney (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Bozo was a clown. You have made a personal attack and will be reported. Arzel (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
No, Bozo was an entertainer, you're a clown. You keep erasing that entire section while lying about it not having sources, and that's as plain as the red ball you have for a nose. MilesMoney (talk) 07:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, please look more closely. Caspring's quote is found at WP:USERG. JanetteDoe (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Colbert is mentioned only a few times on WP:RSN, this is the only occasion where his reliability as a source of facts is discussed, and it is not a ringing endorsement. Think Progress as a Reliable Source is, coincidentally, being discussed right now, the thread being started by Casprings is here. WP:BLP says very clearly "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". JanetteDoe (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The link to the Colbert video is a reliable primary source for what Colbert said. We're not using it to support the *correctness* or *newsworthiness* of what he said; that would be wrong. We have other refs for that. MilesMoney (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Why do you feel a comedy act is relevant in this article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: His stance on dog abuse

99.175.100.21 posted this comment on 8 August 2012 (view all feedback).

His stance on dog abuse

We can't keep censoring this subject; we have readers who are complaining about it not being here! MilesMoney (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Breach of the three revert rule (WP:3RR)

An edit-war has been going on and WP:3RR has already been breached. In lieu of notifying individual editors I am asking for a moratorium on further reverts. If any other reverts happen a report will be made at WP:3RRN. FYI I have also asked for page protection. Thank you for your understanding. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna read up on that now, because I'm not convinced it applies to BLP. Regardless, I just wanna point out for the record that Tom lied and repeatedly insulted me. If I broke a rule, it was unintentional, but his behavior is no accident and should not go unpunished. MilesMoney (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Good luck with that. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No need to read up any further. You are currently running at 5RR, way over 3RR. And yes, it applies to BLP when adding controversial information. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
What are you going to do about his behavior? MilesMoney (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
He's going to give me a stern talking to about making fun of other kids on the playground. Then I'm going to be chastised and sulk back to the tether ball court. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I am only here to stop the edit-warring not to police the conversation. I would request of everyone however that they stick to the issues and avoid making unnecessary comments. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Dude, your buddy Tom not only gamed 3RR by stopping one short, he spiked the ball in his comment and he's been unrepentantly rude since. If you're ok with that then I'm not ok with you. If you want my respect, earn it by being consistent, not turning the other way while he shits on me. MilesMoney (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hear that bro? He's not okay with you. You better make it right, bro. In all seriousness, Miles, take a minute. Learn how the rules here work. Wikipedia is the largest bureaucracy on the planet. There's a way to do things. You're not doing it right. It's a big stupid shitty mess. If you want what you want to push your agenda then figure out how the rules work and do what everyone else does here: wikilawyer the shit out of what it is you want done. Start with figuring out how things like 3RR work. That's not the PC response but it's how things actually get done here. Once you've figured it out start a new account to divorce yourself from this brouhaha. Good luck. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I've never met Tom and he is not my buddy and calling me a "dude" is not professional conduct. I only came here to prevent further breach of WP:3RR without taking sides. If you have any other issues such as civility etc. you can take them to an appropriate noticeboard. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hear that? Fuckin' shit ain't professional. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from making comments which are not helpful. Your edit-summary is also definitely not helpful either: [5] and is an uncalled for provocation of the other editor. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I found them to be helpful as a motherfucker. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record Miles, the responses of TomPointTwo are not acceptable and are being addressed. Please do not assume that such interaction style is permitted. It is not. Let's return to the discussion of the article content.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Tag-team edit warring by Arzel and Thargor Orlando

I've tried to respond constructively for their demands for refs by adding refs. All I get is them cutting out the whole thing. This has to stop.

If they've got a legitimate problem, they can explain themselves here, show that someone agrees with them and then work to fix the article instead of shredding it. MilesMoney (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Comedy acts don't belong in BLPs. You've now added a source that has nothing to with the section twice. Read WP:BLP and get back to us. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
CC could be, if it is covered by other WP:RS. A segment on the show, with no other cites, should not be there. That said, I wouldn't call out other editors on a talk page.Casprings (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Colbert is not a reliable source. It might be an accepted source in some circumstances, as Casprings suggests, but not in this case.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Daily Kos and Washington Post are both secondary RS, and ColbertNation is a primary RS for the subject of what Colbert Report showed. Context is everything. MilesMoney (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
DailyKos is a self-published blog and is not ever appropriate, and ColbertNation is simply a primary source about a comedy show, which runs into the same problem. The Washington Post is a reliable source and no one disagrees, but your use of it is not appropriate as it says nothing about the topic you're using it for. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Daily Kos is not an RS. ColbertNation is primary. Do you understand that the use of primary sources is extremely limited?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
If it's covered by another RS, we should simply use that RS. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
If they are covering the segment in the show because it notable, there would be nothing wrong with including it.Casprings (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
We'd still be better covering it with a reliable source as opposed to a comedy show. That's common sense. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
You can have two cites (or one cite with two sources). If you have a secondary, there is no reason not to have a cite to the primary. Doesn't hurt and helps some.Casprings (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but we should never be using a comedy show as a source, especially when we don't have to. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Why not? If you had multiple WP:RS covering a segment, why not put in the CC source also? It just helps the reader, if they want to see the source.Casprings (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Why would we even include the fact that a comedy program highlighted something? It's silly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
It's disingenous to pretend that Colbert Report is *just* a comedy show. If it were, we wouldn't have secondary sources indicating that the incident was notable. Now, *you* may think nothing of Colbert, but that joker's won Peabody Awards. We've used plenty of reliable sources who never even got a nod. You're not using common sense, just prejudice. Put the article back to the way it was so that we don't have to do it for you. MilesMoney (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
It is just a comedy show. It's a satire of a news commentary program. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I think highly of Colbert. It is one of my favorite shows, and I don't have many. But the winning of the Peabody doesn't make it an RS. YouTube, Sesame Street, South Park and The Onion all have Peabodies, but they aren't RS.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Closer, but not there yet. It's political satire. You're also not being entirely honest in comparing the show to Sesame Street: Colbert's got a journalistic Peabody for his satire of Super PAC's. In other words, satire is not just comedy.
In any case, your opinion here is as worthless as mine: what matters is whether we've got secondary sources, and we do. MilesMoney (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
A good example is http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/08/10/steve-king-clarifies-opposition-to-animal-fighting-legislation-responds-to-stephen-colbert/article, which is a regular newspaper reporting on the Colbert incident as notable. With this sewn up, I've put back the Colbert section. MilesMoney (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
So it doesn't sound like you are interested in contributing here. You tell me I'm not being honest, yet you don't even know me. I didn't compare Colbert to Sesame Street. Try again, and see if you can uncover my point. It wasn't subtle, it wasn't hard, yet you didn't get it.
I know Colbert won his Peabody (his most recent one, he has more than one) for political satire. Most people know what satire is, and I would have assumed you did, but people who know what satire is would know that means it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Or maybe you know what satire is, but don't understand the word "reliable." I don't know you, so I'm just trying to figure out exactly what you are getting wrong, but "wrong" is the operative word.
No, what matters her is not that "we" have "secondary sources" what matters is whether you have reliable sources, AND whether the sourced material belongs in an encyclopaedia article (Being adequately sourced is not enough, it has to pass other hurdles as well.)
Did it ever occur to you that in all your vast experience on Wikipedia, now spanning more than 24 hours, you might not have grasped every one of the myriad of polices and guidelines we've developed to help deliver good content? Did you ever think that those of us who have been here for years might have a clue? That our aim is not to "censor" the MilesMoney's of the world, but to find ways to add encyclopedia knowledge to this project, and while far from perfect, we've learned a few things about how to do it?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


You are missing what I am saying. I am saying that, IF the segment became news (i.e.. multiple sources picked up on a segment of Cobert). than I wouldn't think putting in a link to the show would be a bad thing (along with links to WP:RS secondary sources.Casprings (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That anyone, anywhere, is capable of citing a comedy show as a reliable source on contemporary political figures is both self-fulfilling and absurd. If an editor has a point they'd like to make, sociologically or in the realm of political science, then I'd suggest they not source such material to a basic cable comedy routine. Any such additions should be singled out and removed without any hesitation, including the most recent. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
What you're describing doesn't match what's actually happening. We're not using a political satire as a reliable source on King, we're using it as a reliable source on its own contents. This is an acceptable use of a primary source. We have a few secondary sources which show that the two-way exchange between King and Colbert is notable, so we have to go with their view, not our own.
Bottom line is that your reasoning depends on false premises, which I have debunked. MilesMoney (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
No, what your describing simply relies on the fact it happened, which is neither relevant or passing the laugh test for a BLP, a criteria which I'd suggest you reorient yourself with. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
You say it's not relevant, but our sources disagree. Who do you think we're gonna listen to? MilesMoney (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Consensus and policy, both of which color you as a fool. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
But TomPointTwo, MilesMoney has been working on the project some 13 days with a single purpose of pushing this material into the project, certainly he knows more and has better intentions than every one else here? Right? Seriously? Ah huh? Ok? For sure?--Malerooster (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Next steps regarding Colbert material

MilesMoney, there is a disagreement about how and whether to include the remarks of Stephen Colbert about Steve King. We have an established process for handling such disputes. Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The good news is that you are following some aspects of this process.

In short, you BOLDly added some material. Another editor determined that the material did not belong, so REVERTed it. Both are DISCUSSing the propriety of including the material on the Talk page of the article.

All of those things are good, although the tone of the rhetoric could use a little improvement. However, when in a BRD cycle, it is not permitted to keep editing the article. The next step in the sequence is to discuss the issues and reach a CONSENSUS whether the material belongs in the article or not, and exactly what from it should be if included.

If, while discussing, you keep re-adding the material you will fall afoul of 3RR or EW or both, each of which can lead to a block, so I urge you to stop trying to add the material, and continue the discussion on the talk page to see if you can persuade other editors that your view is in compliance with policy and deserves inclusion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The real question is, did enough WP:RS sources cover the segment, in relation to comments? The comments themselves are clearly notable and should be in the article.Casprings (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Why is the segment worthy of note? Thargor Orlando (talk)
I am not saying it is. From what I have seen,it isn`t. It should be widely covered by WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it is, either, but we've got secondary sources that are. Guess it's important when a politician gets called out by a political satirist. MilesMoney (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I've protected the article for three days because of the edit warring. However, if you can reach a consensus here about how the section should be worded, the page can be unprotected sooner than that. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The Washington Post ref does not support any material related to animal fighting. It refers to Colbert's testimony on the Hill relating to immigration and farm labor. Rep. King is mentioned but this is really an article about Colbert's odd performance at the hearing. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Steve King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Post office debate and McCarthy comment

At some point in the history of this article, King's now infamous comment about McCarthy being a "hero for America" was inexplicably removed entirely from this sub-section. That comment turned a mostly insignicant debate about the naming of a post office into a major news story and most certainly should not have been removed without at least bringing it to the talk page. JGardner 04:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC) See M. Stanton Evans' book "Blacklisted by History" for how Senator Joseph McCarthy was struggling against Marxist traitors who wished to create a totalitarian society in the United States which would have led to the deaths of tens of millions of human beings.2A02:C7D:B5E6:6400:447B:2BF0:571A:E878 (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

Hi!

My edit to clarify on Steve King's sexual orientation was reverted. Why is that? This is an information which is of public interest.


Don't be a jerk. I dislike King as much as anybody does, but sophomoric vandalism serves no purpose. Hawkeye (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC) The voters like Congressman Steve King - even if teacher's pets from the universities do not. Wikipedia advertises itself as something that anyone can edit - yet it always turns out that articles on political figures are written by leftists and conservative writing is not tolerated.2A02:C7D:B5E6:6400:447B:2BF0:571A:E878 (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

old white people

Sneering at "old white people" in the Context of the Republican Convention of 2016 is itself racist ("white") as well as ageist ("old") - so why did the other people in the television station not apologise for their anti white racism and their bigotry against old people?2A02:C7D:B5E6:6400:447B:2BF0:571A:E878 (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

AIUI,the original comment was a factitious reference to a demographic, which you are reading as being sneering but probably and indeed almost certainly was not. If you are at the top of the age pyramid in a population, then you are old in it. If you look around and all you see are other white faces in some context in a culture when that culture is not overwhelmingly white, so that non whites would be rare period, then you are in a white context. The combination of these is frankly old and white which has a disproportionate representation in the current GOP and observing this fact is not, in and of itself, sneering. For the same objective basis, it is not racist or ageist. The reaction though is illustrative of the neurotic core of what conservatism in essence is, i.e. neuroticism. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2017

In the section: Support of Geert Wilders and controversy, which is at the end of the article, the first sentence gives the date March 12. 2016 and it should be 2017. 47.32.131.102 (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Jeff King, Steve's son

No mention of him in article or was no article on him on wikipedia. Fixed Jeff King (consultant) 

--Wikipietime (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)--Wikipietime (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Steve King. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Steve King. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Twitter banter with Emma Gonzalez

We aren't the news but this has been covered by RS. How notable is it in the long run? --Malerooster (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Torture

The section is misleading, taken out of context AND a gross BLP violation. King was making a comparison between "The dismembered and charred corpses of American contractors dangling over the Euphrates River"[1] and Abu Gharaib. We cannot use this source without the context. Moreover, we cannot say that this comprehensively represents his views on "torture." – Lionel(talk) 10:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Use it in context, then. It's not a BLP violation because that's exactly what he said. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://steveking.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/king-abu-gharaib-heidi-fleiss-and-political-cannibals-statement-by-iowa
@Black Kite: as you directed I added context to correct the misrepresentation which was a BLP vio [6]. Snoogans has removed the context and restored the BLP vio against consensus [7]. His edim sum "no misrepresentation at all" which goes against consensus and refusal to discuss on Talk can only mean that he intends to edit war even though 3RR does not apply and he will get blocked. "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." WP:NOT3RR – Lionel(talk) 11:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
(1) There is no BLP violation. (2) The text did not mislead or take anything out of context. The text followed the secondary RS and is perfectly consistent with King's full statement. (3) Here are multiple other RS that say the same thing: AP[8][9], CBS News[10], Des Moines Register[11]. I think the lesson here is that you need to work on your reading comprehension and start to work collaboratively with editors. That you would edit-war and threaten to seek sanctions in order to remove obviously accurate material is not OK. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Black Kite said to add context.– Lionel(talk) 12:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The whole quote adds nothing of value and may even obfuscate for readers (you can vouch for this as you yourself seemed confused about what was said). The pertinent part of the quote is the comparison of prisoner torture and abuse to "hazing". This is not King's website. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Current status of the disagreement (diff)

Lionel's Version Uses the Full Quote Snooganssnoogans' Version Uses Selected Except
Original quote:

"“The dismembered and charred corpses of American contractors dangling over the Euphrates River in comparison to the abuse committed by a few soldiers at Abu Ghraib are like the crimes of Jeffrey Dahmer compared to those of Heidi Fleiss. What amounts to hazing is not even in the same ballpark as mass murder."[12]		 Excerpt of quote:

In May 2014, King compared the torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison to "hazing".[13][14][15][16][17]
Rationale:

The section is misleading, taken out of context AND a gross BLP violation. Per WP:Identifying reliable sources#Quotations: "accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source....Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context."		 Rationale:

the full quote adds nothing. it's the comparison of torture to hazing that is notable and covered by RS

– Lionel(talk) 01:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Current diff in-line with policies as regards to hazing quote):
There is some WP:RS which suggests that King's comments have been interpreted as comparing Abu Ghrabib to hazing (though I would suggest not all the sources currently listed truly are RS). Further coverage in these RS, sometimes on different topics all-together, in this case bolsters the case for the hazing comment being notable and thus meriting inclusion without other context. Because the section name has been changed during the course of this disagreement from Torture to Abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, I suggest the current diff follows appropriate Wikipedia policies in this regard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Cn - Not needed

@1990'sguy:Mother Jones was challenged by User 1990's guy as not being a reliable source, after that publication contested a particularly stupid and intemperate remark by King, about Julian Castro. King said he was "just as Hispanic as Castro." The cited Mother Jones article noted: "Julian Castro is Mexican-American, the son of a noted Chicano political activist from San Antonio. A local newspaper profile in 2002 describes King’s ancestry as Irish, German, and Welsh. Steve King is not Hispanic or Latino by any conventional definition." King had written, "What does Julian Castro know? I'm just as Hispanic as he." By Wikipedia standards, that's gold-plated sourcing. Furthermore, the Mother Jones Wikipedia article notes the magazine has been a finalist for 31 National Magazine ("Ellie") awards, winning seven times, as well as having won many other prestigious awards. Activist (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Political positions section

The political positions section seems to be a grab bag of votes, quotes, and possibly goats. At the very least, this section needs better organization and probably some culling. I started making some edits to try to make it a little more encyclopedic and WP:NPOV. Does anyone have any thoughts on this section? - MrX 🖋 12:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

In this talk[18], I advocated for unifying several sub-sections in the 'pol positions' section under a 'Racist comments and far-right politics' sub-section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to organize it by grouping together his various statements on foreign relations but I can agree that far more extensive work needs to be done. Zubin12 (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Does the Article Conform to WP:NPOV ?

I'm going to preempt the issue and start a discussion on the the talk-page about how much the article conform to a neutral point of view. The current points of contention lie with his categorization as Alt-Right, Racist and other bigoted categorizations. In my mind, it's quite clear from the sources cited that by any reasonable definition he falls under the definition. Trying to pretend that a significant figure isn't out of some false-sense of both-the-same is silly but I can understand why people might find the current categorization disturbing.

Does the article require changing to be more neutral? Zubin12 (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Cherry-picking the lead

The lead is problematic in a number of ways. Not only does it not summarize the article, 4 specific items have been selectively included thereby magnifying contentious assertions thus casting the subject in a poor light in violation of WP:BLP:

  • staunch opponent of illegal immigration
  • multiculturalism
  • racist comments
  • retweeted a posts by a British neo-Nazi and self-described admirer of Hitler

This violates MOS:BEGIN, WP:CREATELEAD#Rule of thumb. In addition to policies already cited, the retweet also violates WP:NOTNEWS. To comply with WP:BLP these items must be removed. – Lionel(talk) 08:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I count seven sub-sections in his "tenure" section which are about King's opposition to immigration and multiculturalism, topics which he frequently gets RS coverage for. This is something that this person is prominent for. That King has a "history of racist comments" is language that comes from the New York Times. I don't think the retweets should be in the lede, but they should be in the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
This may have been sparked by Snooganssnoogans's edit of June 16 saying "history of making racist comments" etc. It's sourced, but calling comments "racist" is an opinion, not useful for a statement of fact in Wikipedia voice. There's no consensus for it, judging by Zubin12's edit of June 17 and Lionelt's removal, and I am opposed too. Repeating the accusation with in-text attribution is okay in the article body, though, if it's "commonly used by reliable sources" (this is new wording in WP:BLP). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I asked for input on the BLP noticeboard[19]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The archive of that BLP discussion is here. No consensus, and the suggestion by Jimbo Wales ("He has a history of making comments that have commonly been referred to as racist") was ignored. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I put together a list of some RS coverage of King. These sources make clear that one of King's claims to notoriety is his racist and incendiary commentary on matters of race and immigration. There are also a number of RS who describe his commentary as "racist" or "racially charged": Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  • NY Times[20]: "In Mr. King’s case, his eight-term incumbency and his own history of racist comments"
  • AP[21]: "King is known for making racially charged commentary"
  • NPR[22]: "Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, who has a history of controversial statements on immigration and race"
  • NBC News[23]: "King is well known for his comments that many Latinos and immigrants have regarded as at least insulting and to some as racist or bigoted."
  • Politico[24]: "Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa has become notorious for making thinly veiled racist pronouncements about the threats of immigration"
  • WaPo[25]: "King, whose racially inflected comments on subjects such as immigration and Western culture have drawn headlines for years"
  • The Atlantic[26]: "Steve King has always made a habit of speaking his mind, and quite frequently his mind has been controversial, blatantly false, or outright racist."
  • Roll Call[27]: "King is known for making racially inflammatory remarks."
  • Buzzfeed News[28]: "Rep. Steve King, the brash Republican whose penchant for shocking, racist comments has made him a staple of cable news"
  • The Guardian[29]: "King has long been one of the most vociferously anti-immigration members of the House Republican caucus and is known for his controversial rhetoric on the subject."
  • Vox[30]: "Rep. Steve King’s latest racist remarks are far from his first"
  • The Advocate[31]: "King has a history of not-so-subtly racist comments."
  • NY Times[32]: The whole piece is about King's notoriety for anti-immigration commentary.

There is a ton of sources on this and indeed this is a primary reason why he gets the publicity he does. Lede should highlight the key facts about the subject and this is a key fact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Power~enwiki, if you think the Nazi retweet doesn't belong in the lede, I can understand that. But you also removed the other statement, about racist comments, which does belong in the lede since it summarizes the article. Can you put that part back in please? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I've re-added that, changing "racist" to "controversial". I'd prefer not to edit that section further; hopefully there will be consensus regarding the level of detail needed in the lead regarding the nature of his comments. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Come on man, that's pretty clearly whitewashing it. The sources don't say "controversial", they say "racist". Or some times "controversial AND racist".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't deny that it's "weasel words", but I'm not willing to restore "racist" to the lead myself. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Well I'm fine with restoring "racist" to the lead, and have done so. If someone can come up with a reason not to, I'm all ears. Valeince (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree this article is problematic editorially, largely due to the sheer volume of ridiculous comments Steve King has made. As some of my friends are involved with the JD Scholten campaign against King, I'm going to refrain from any significant edits to this article through the November election. I do note that, regardless of the nonsense he has said, his primary notability comes from being a member of the United States Congress. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

As long as we're on the topic, there's way too many sub-sub-sections in the "Tenure" sub-section. A lot of these could simply be combined into one section "Racist comments".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I've thrown the whole thing into "Political positions" (so they can be combined); a lot of them can be combined. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Please update the Nazi claim to reflect the source. First The Post calls the tweeter a white nationalist from a British white nationalist who has described himself in the past as an admirer of Hitler’s Germany and a “Nazi sympathizer” and deferring to the more sensational description is a BLP problem. Next it puts the tweet in context which we don't leaving readers to wonder whether he retweeted Nazi rhetoric. Please add who shared a Breitbart News statistic on Italian views of "mass immigration." or something similar. Should I make a formal edit request or is this enough? 185.230.127.230 (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Edit: Here's the paragraph from the Post I'm paraphrasing, in case you don't have access. King, whose racially inflected comments on subjects such as immigration and Western culture have drawn headlines for years, retweeted the British white nationalist Mark Collett, who had shared a statistic from Breitbart News on Tuesday morning about opinions of “mass immigration” in Italy. 185.230.127.230 (talk)

I agree with Volunteer Marek that we need to start compiling King's racist and bigoted statements into a single-subsection in the 'political positions' section. Perhaps titled 'Racist comments and far-right politics'. I count at least 9 sub-sections in the current article which could be combined under such a heading. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_King/Archive_1&oldid=1069869222"