Talk:Steve King/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Categories not established in article

The following categories are not established in the article:

• Category:Islamophobia in the United States

Islamophobia is the fear, hatred of, or prejudice against, the Islamic religion or Muslims generally[...] - Article Islamophobia. Please note that criticism of Islam is not inherently equivalent to Islamophobia.

• Category:Alt-right politicians in the United States

The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely-connected and somewhat ill-defined grouping of white supremacists/white nationalists, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, Holocaust deniers, and other far-right fringe hate groups. - Article Alt-right. It is not established in the article that King is part of any such movement or involved with any such movement.

• Category:American conspiracy theorists

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. The term is often a derogatory one. - Article Conspiracy Theory. The term "conspiracy" does not even appear in the article.

Due to the lack of relevant connections to these topics and the derogatory nature of these charged political topics (violated NPOV), the categories in question should be removed. 62.153.24.8 (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The wikipedia page list's numerous instances of him engaging in Islamophobic behaviour such as his criticism of Former President Obama's middle-name and his criticism of muslim warehouse workers handling pork. He has re-tweated and supported numerous alt-right figures as listed in the section via his social media accounts. He is certainly a supporter of the movement, I can agree on the removal of his categorisation of a conspiracy theorist pending edits that add content supporting such a categorization. Zubin12 (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess we found an agreement on the Conspiracy Theory category. Whether that criticism of Obama using his middle name while campaigning is Islamophobic is not up for us to decide, that would be editorializing. There would need to be a sourced section where his behavior is described as Islamophobic by at least one note-worthy source. And like I quoted, Islamophobia is defined by the relevant Wikipedia article as [...]the fear, hatred of, or prejudice against, the Islamic religion or Muslims[...]. Being opposed to Islam or criticizing Islam is not synonymous with Islamophobia. His ideas and behavior might very well be Islamophobic, but the article does not show that.

Which alt-right figures are you referring to? Orban, Le-Pen and Wilders? Those people are not described as alt-right in their respective articles either. There is a section which says that King got support for his statements from white nationalists, but that does not make King a white nationalist himself. 84.191.34.201 (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

To add more clarity to this. Please refer to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures (that section and the whole guide in general). Allegations need to be well sourced and should never be based on original research. 91.17.204.20 (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC) (IP is different, but I am 84.191.34.201)

His tweeting history in the article refers to numerous incidents where re-tweeted alt-right figures, additionally he is heavily backed and has supported Steve Bannon who is considered one of the key figures in the formation of the alt-right. A rational observer would see that he is so exculpatory for him being a member of the movement. Zubin12 (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I found one mention of a retweet in the article: In June 2018, he retweeted a comment by Mark Collett, a British neo-Nazi. As far as I am aware a retweet is not automatically equivalent to an endorsement or a fraternization with the person who tweeted the original. Re-tweeting a Neo-Nazi does not make one a Neo-Nazi, being a follower of the Neo-Nazi ideology makes one a Neo-Nazi. And as far as I am aware that has not been established in the article. There is no mention of noteworthy people accusing King of being a Neo-Nazi. There is no mention of Steve Bannon in the article either. If there is a connection to Steve Bannon, then point that out in the article with proper sources, then bring it up again. And according to Bannon's respective article, he is connected to the alt-right, not a member of the alt-right. And what a "rational observer" (in your opinion) would see is irrelevant. We are not here to make conclusions, our job is to reflect what can be reasonably sourced. It only matters what is established with strong sources in the article. Again, please look at the guide for writing articles about living people. 91.17.204.20 (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

(This discussion would be quite a bit easier if you register an account) Very well, I agree that the categories may be removed pending the addition of sources supporting th claim. Zubin12 (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I might create an account in the future. The article is still locked. Shall I make an edit request so an admin can remove the categories for now? 91.17.204.20 (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm a realtivly new user here so i'm not exactly sure about the proper procedure but I would wait for the lock to naturally expire as more than 2 people have to be involved in the discussion in order for consensus to be obtained. Zubin12 (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I am also not sure what the correct procedure is. You mean I should just edit it once the lock expires (appears to be later today)? People who disagree could post here. Or should I request other users to comment, to create a bigger consensus? The Wikipedia:Consensus page talks about requesting a third person's opinion, but that appears to be reserved for disputes between two users that can not be resolved by civil discourse, which we have already managed to do. 91.17.204.20 (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the best course of action would be to make a post on the admin responsible Vanamonde93 talk page asking them to unlock it as the issue has managed to be resolved. Zubin12 (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I have written a message on admin Vanamonde93's talk page. The editing lock was lifted and I have removed the three categories in question. This concludes the issue as far as I am concerned. 91.17.204.20 (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It would appear that protection has automatically expired, by a happy coincidence, just as agreement was reached, so there's nothing for me to do here. Thanks for sorting this out amicably. Vanamonde (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Compared immigrants to dogs

This is a sufficient source.[1] A direct quote would be pointless because it's several sentences, all we need to do is say he did. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

NY Times: "In 2012, he compared immigrants to dogs."[2]. 20:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday he tweeted “Have a look at all the diversity at my annual ‘General Bud Day Pheasant Hunt’!” with a picture of a group of various breeds of DOGS at the event." On it's own we can't use it but it may have or will hit the media. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"Racist comments"

Multiple RS explicitly refer to "racist" comments.

References

Multiple editors (primarily IP numbers) have sought to change this into "critics/opponents accuse King of racist comments". The Wikipedia article currently contains a weaselly compromise where it says King has made "statements that have been described as racist". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. The neutrality policy says: avoid stating facts as opinions. R2 (bleep) 16:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Most openly affiliated with white nationalsm

Snooganssnoogans, why do we need more than the Washington Post saying that King is the member of Congress most openly affiliated with white nationalism for us to say that in Wikipedia's own voice? Isn't the Washington Post a reliable source? R2 (bleep) 18:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Because the text can be considered a WP:LABEL violation, and thus needs to be sourced to more than just one RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up @Snooganssnoogans, somebody keeps reverting this bit about white nationalism without adding another reliable source. This seems like it may be straying into POV pushing on there end.165.225.39.69 (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Sock of indef blocked user Squanchinho.

I don't understand. Why do we need a second reliable source that says the same thing? Isn't one enough? I reverted because Snooganssnoogans never responded. R2 (bleep) 18:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, how does WP:LABEL apply? The content doesn't label King, nor does it express an opinion. R2 (bleep) 00:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Per the Biography of Living Persons policy, the burden of proof is on the person who is adding contentious material to show that it is appropriate for inclusion (including that it does not violate NPOV, verifiability, and NOR). So it should be removed until it can be shown that it does not violate NPOV. Its also questionable if the claim follows Verifiability, as the source does not give a reason or evidence to support the claim, so it seems like gossip, which is a violation of BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.186.240.41 (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The content says nothing more, nothing less than what the source says, and the source is reliable. So what's the NPOV problem? What's he verifiability policy? What's the NOR problem? Be specific. R2 (bleep) 00:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have added cites to The New York Times and Vanity Fair asserting King is or close to being a "white nationalist". The three sources used are far from unique. Philip Cross (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Dirt

Tempwirk, please review the sources more closely. Before the recording was released, King challenged the Weekly Standard to release the audio. So it did. There was nothing about a partial recording and a full recording. If you think I'm mistaken please explain yourself here. R2 (bleep) 23:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are mistaken. There is nothing to explain. It is simply King's response ("Just release the full tape" = Kings's words) which is reliably sourced to THE HILL. I removed the part about "partial recording" because it doesn't appear King used those specific words in his response. You have removed this text now several times, please stop.Tempwirk (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

So your paraphrase is absolutely incorrect. Moreover, it doesn't matter whether he asked for that or not: the audio was released, and that was already verified. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue, I am confused? This is simply King's response, directly from a reliable source. Nothing was paraphrased incorrectly. He is also quoted in this article responding to accusations of antisemitism (“These attacks are orchestrated by nasty, desperate, and dishonest fake news. Their ultimate goal is to flip the House and impeach Donald Trump. Establishment Never-Trumpers are complicit.”)...should that be removed also? Do all politicians have their responses removed from their Wikipedia pages when they respond to an accusation? What are the specific rules for this issue?Tempwirk (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason why I reverted your edit is because it was misleading as to the timeline of events. The tweets that King sent out were sent out before The Weekly Standard released the audio tapes. This is evident from The Hill article, which stated: "King and his campaign previously denied the existence of the audio, daring the magazine to post it in a series of Twitter posts." (The Hill then posted King's tweets.) Other sources back up this chain of events; see, for example, this article from The Washington Post and this article from NPR and this article from The Washington Examiner. Multiple reliable sources state that King published those tweets before the release of the tape. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I removed the text. Sorry, I screwed up on this. Thank you Aoi (青い) for clearing things up. Tempwirk (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Most openly affiliated with white nationalsm

OPTION A:

The consensus is to use:

• Option A: The Washington Post has described King as "the U.S. congressman most openly affiliated with white nationalism."

Editors concluded that Option B does not comply with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy because a single The Washington Post source is insufficient to make the statement in Wikipedia's own voice. Editors noted that if more reliable sources supported the statement, this can be revisited.

Cunard (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of the following 2 options is preferable? Both cite this Washington Post source: [3]

Option A: The Washington Post has described King as "the U.S. congressman most openly affiliated with white nationalism."

Option B: King is more openly affiliated with white nationalism than any other member of the 115th Congress.

R2 (bleep) 01:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Option B Content should be stated in Wikipedia's own voice where possible. Option B is factual, verifiable, and neutrally worded. When we use in-text attribution for undisputed, verifiable facts, we treat those facts as opinions ("oh that's just the Washington Post's opinion," fake news, blah blah blah), and that violates neutrality (Avoid stating facts as opinions). R2 (bleep) 01:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Option A Per WP:NPOV policy:

"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.""

This is clearly not an "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion"—hence the controversy which the initiator of this RfC has generated with his changes. Endymion.12 (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Option A in dissent of NPOV policy and wording. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Option A: Per Endymion.12's reasoning and WP:NPOV. King is a controversial figure and still has a lot of supporters within the GOP. He also has verociously denied the "white nationalist" characterization. We should attribute the characterization to WaPo (or anyone else who makes it). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Option A: There should be more extensive sourcing in order to say this in Wiki voice. If a few more RS can be found, then it's ok to say this in Wiki voice. If it's only the Washington Post, then we should attribute this to WaPo. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Option A. It's a heck of a statement to just stick in Wikivoice on the basis of a Washington Post article. Calling someone "openly affiliated with white nationalism" isn't a simple statement of fact; it's a value judgment that cobbles together three poorly-defined concepts: "openly", "affiliated", and "white nationalism". In what sense is King "openly" affiliated, given that he denies this affiliation? If we're going to use "openly" for someone who denies holding a view, what would we call a candidate who actually claims to be a white nationalist? Similarly, "affiliated" and "white nationalism" are vague enough words that it's not ideal to put a sentence like that in Wikivoice. Likewise, there's no doubt that Joseph Kony is a bad person -- it's not even controversial. But we don't just write "Joseph Kony is a bad person" in Wikivoice. Alephb (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Option B per sources below. It's still poorly worded. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 21:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Where's the opinion in saying King has openly affiliated with white nationalism? No one is saying he's evil. This is a reliable news source reporting an undisputed fact. R2 (bleep) 20:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that we must use in-text attribution because editors disagree about whether we must use in-text attribution? R2 (bleep) 16:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: "Where's the opinion in saying King has openly affiliated with white nationalism?": That Steve King is "affiliated with white nationalism" is a very strong claim. "Affiliated" implies that he is a white nationalist, or participates in a wider white nationalist movement. This is certainly not an "undisputed fact", no matter how many times you insist that it is (without any elaboration or further evidence). You would do better to push for language like the following (incorporating references to sources which make similar claims): "Steve King has been associated with white nationalist movements", or "Steve King's language/rhetoric has caused him to be associated with white nationalism".

"Are you seriously suggesting that we must use in-text attribution because editors disagree about whether we must use in-text attribution?": No, I'm pointing out that despite your denials you are trying to insert a highly contentious claim into the lead of the article. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer to just stick to what the reliable sources say. If the reliable sources are in disagreement then we should reflect that. This stuff about "well that's a strong claim" or "that's certainly not an undisputed fact" without identifying any dispute among reliable sources isn't productive. Find a reliable source that contradicts what the Washington Post story says and I'll gladly accommodate it. Don't assume I'm an unreasonable zealot. :-) R2 (bleep) 18:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: We are sticking to what RS say, we just aren't re-stating controversial claims in Wikipedia's voice.

"Find a reliable source that contradicts what the Washington Post story says": Are you seriously asking me to find a source which states that Steve King isn't a white nationalist? The absence of a source directly contradicting language you've plagiarized from the Washington Post obviously doesn't imply that this isn't still a contentious claim. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't follow. You said King's open affiliation with white nationalism was not an undisputed fact, so I'm asking you in good faith to back that up with a reliable source. R2 (bleep) 22:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't suppose you do follow. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Snooganssnoogans, here are some additional sources that describe King as either white nationalist or affiliated with white nationalism: Washington Post (different author), Washington Post (3rd author), Vanity Fair, CNN, The Intercept R2 (bleep) 22:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

King's recent controversial statement

This wikipedia article currently cites The Hill to quote King's recently controversial statement as being:

"White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?"

However, King's full statement in the original New York Times article is:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/us/politics/steve-king-trump-immigration-wall.html

“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”

In this context, it appears that he was asking how the term "western civilization" came to be associated with those other two terms.

I think this wikipedia article should be edited to include his complete statement, as it was published in the original New York Times article.

Thaddeus Bradshaw (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation. The second part of his statement is merely an attempt to excuse the bigotry.[4][5][6] - MrX 🖋 13:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Noting that the struck edit was by a sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

BLP cleanup

I made some minor edits by removing editorializing or calling Steve King a racist, but not altering the content of the article or any of the sourced content (even if the sources may be editorialized arguably). I believe my edits remove violations of WP:BLP in a way that does not remove any notable information. JLaw220 (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

There was no editorialization. The content all reflected by the RS. The header "Racist comments, controversies and far-right politics" is descriptive for the content that follows. The header "Comments, controversies and politics" is not. Also, this account was created less than 30 minutes ago, but knows of the BLP policy and finds his/her way to the talk page, which is ehrm interesting. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2019

Change "Committe" to "Committee" in the last sentence of the introductory paragraph. 216.30.182.162 (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for discussion - King's response to controversy and edit reversion

I updated the article to include Steve King's response to the allegations that he had questioned the offensiveness of white supremacy, but my changes were reverted by Snooganssnoogans who argued that "King has a history of falsely claiming misquotation". However, it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to assess whether King is an honest person. Snooganssnoogans also suggested that perhaps the accusation should be left in the lede but his denials should be relegated to the body of the article (though Snooganssnoogans simply removed the content). However surely King's alternative interpretation of his own statements (which has been reported on subsequently by the New York Times) should be included in the article alongside the original accusation/interpretation, so that readers who only see the lede aren't misled into thinking that it is an uncontested fact that "King questioned why terms such as 'white nationalist' and 'white supremacy' were considered offensive". To be clear, King's interpretation is that the transcribed punctuation of his (presumably verbal) interview remarks was misleading, and that he had merely questioned the offensiveness of "Western Civilization" [7]; note that his suggestion does not necessarily require that the Times was dishonest, but merely that they may have misinterpreted ambiguous interview remarks (which only appear unambiguous assuming punctuation that King did not provide). LoveIsGrue (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up: Given that this is a WP:NPOV issue in a biography of living persons (WP:BLP), I went ahead and added back King's interpretation of his own statements (in addition to the original accusation). However, if you disagree, please let me know and I am happy to discuss (I added a talkback to Snooganssnoogans' page).LoveIsGrue (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

NY Times is entirely capable of transcribing an interview. Additionally, King has a history of lying about being misquoted. King's response does not belong in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that King's response does not belong in the lead. It lacks credibility and would violate NPOV. The fact that this article is a BLP is not a valid reason for placing the subject's false claim in the lead.- MrX 🖋 12:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not our role as editors to assess whether his denial is "false" or "lacks credibility" (see WP:NOR), but I responded to your other points (and Snooganssnoogans') in more detail below.LoveIsGrue (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

LoveIsGrue, you raise an interesting point. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• It should go back in some way. WP:PUBLICFIGURE is very clear about it. I'm not convinced by Snooganssnoogans's arguments and King has not previously referenced white nationalism. Moreover, the quote wouldn't belong in the lead at all if it didn't generate so much controversy, because only the person who said something knows what they meant by it, and no news organization is capable of reading minds. wumbolo ^^^ 19:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  No, that's an argument for having his denial in the article, not in the lead.- MrX 🖋 20:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

His denial is already in the article. It doesn't belong in lead, because it's not a significant point. - MrX 🖋 23:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, Snooganssnoogans just recently added additional content about King's interpretation to the body of the article, at roughly the same time that he removed my additions from the lead. This is progress, but there is still a significant NPOV issue, in that the accusation remains in the lead, but the denials have been relegated to a separate less visible part of the article. Snooganssnoogans says that the Times is "entirely capable of transcribing an interview"; but the literal spoken words are not in dispute, just the interpretation (and the correct punctuation to convey that interpretation); this interpretative question is a matter of opinion, and King is the only one with full access to this information (i.e. did he intend the comment about offensiveness to apply to the full list or just the last item as he claims). If we are going to preserve NPOV in this instance, I think we should either have both the accusation and his response in the lead, or we should move both claims to the body; but the current solution of separating them effectively hides the opposing viewpoint from the reader and does not preserve NPOV, which is particularly concerning in this case given NP:BLP.LoveIsGrue (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I asked for input on the BLP noticeboard.[8] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion there if others want to chime in. @Snooganssnoogans, MrX, Wumbolo, Emir of Wikipedia. LoveIsGrue (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Given that this NPOV dispute is ongoing (see BLP noticeboard link above), and consensus does not seem to be imminent, I went ahead and added a "neutrality disputed" tag to the sentence in question.LoveIsGrue (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

User:MrX claims there's a consensus but I counted and there's nothing of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 02:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The whole lead deserves his response in which he calls white nationalism "evil". I don't care if he frequently says he was misinterpreted. I don't care if he consistently says things he disavows later. I don't care that NPOV secondary sources don't cover his denials prominently. The denial isn't an optional nice-to-have, and doesn't factor out to the back of the bus under some scenarios. Hey kids, you ever think it might be important to note that a racisty racist racismizer likes to claim such views are evil? The clear policy is also useful to understanding certain sorts throughout history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 15:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing the "See also" from the Racial profiling subsection

Removing the See also: Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy from this subsection is completely unwarranted. King's comments were completely driven by that very incident. It is also referenced in the second paragraph of that section. I've re-added the hatnote. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I missed the reference to Gates. I moved the link to a more logical location; the first paragraph is not connected that incident. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

"It's not about race" quote

I don't know why something this straightforward has to be discussed on the talk page, but here we are... what's wrong with this edit, where Steve King says that The New York Times didn't include his statement in the infamous interview when he said, "It's not about race"? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF.- MrX 🖋 23:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Steve King has previously made racist statements to a publication, then lied about them and claimed he'd been taken out of context, and then got caught lying ([9]). I think that reliable sources are therefore probably less inclined to extend credibility to his latest denial. Does that answer your question? MastCell ^Talk 00:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

MrX - thanks for linking to that guideline; it seems to clarify that, yes, a press release from a congressman is a valid source of information about that person. MastCell - not really; the issue is not whether he did or didn't say it; the issue is whether he says he said it. And the press release indicates that, yes, he says he said it. Whether he's lying or not is unknowable and somewhat irrelevant. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

King's press release is not usable because it's self-serving. MastCell is also correct. We do not have to include lies simply because they came from the article subject.- MrX 🖋 12:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I was going to write something about the use of press releases on Wikipedia, but it turns out this was quoted in a news article, so there's no need to cite the press release directly; I re-added the quote with that reference instead. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: Would you please make sure to add the URL when adding citations using template:cite web template?- MrX 🖋 16:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I missed it. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonathan Greenblatt quote

The article currently contains a fairly long quote from a letter by Jonathan Greenblatt, head of the Anti-Defamation League: ""After the events of this weekend, I knew that ADL could be silent no more... Rep. King has brought dishonor onto the House of Representatives. We strongly urge you and the congressional leadership to demonstrate your revulsion with Rep. King’s actions by stripping him of his subcommittee chairmanship and initiating proceedings to formally censure or otherwise discipline him." This is a lot of verbiage for very little actual information, which is that Greenblatt (a former Obama aide who has been criticized for his pro-Democratic bias) wanted Steve King to be censured or otherwise punished. Including this full, rather histrionic quote seems to be a violation of WP:UNDUE, since it says more about Greenblatt than about King. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If you can come up with a way to paraphrase his remarks in a more concise fashion, that would be worth considering. Your opinion that he has a pro-Democratic bias based on an opinion from Alex VanNess (who writes for The New York Post, The American Thinker, Breitbart News, The Washington Examiner, and The Daily Caller) is not worthy of consideration.- MrX 🖋 20:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It's already paraphrased in the article: "Jonathan Greenblatt sent Paul Ryan an open letter calling on him to censure King, citing King's relationship with far-right Freedom Party of Austria and other far-right groups in Europe." (The first "far-right" is unnecessary, but that's another story.) If you don't trust an opinion from Alex VanNess, there's plenty of other people making the same claim about Greenblatt. Not that it really matters - the point is, Greenblatt and the ADL don't really speak for anyone other than themselves, and thus their views don't seem to merit this much detail. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the ADL speaks for a lot of people, including about 6 million people who no longer have a voice thanks to another politician who had antisemitic views. - MrX 🖋 22:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow, great. That's actually pretty offensive, to impute some specific political views to victims of genocide in order to score a rhetorical point. Anyway, let's focus on the issue at hand. I think this is a classic case of WP:UNDUE. What do you think? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this discussion-in-circles has gone far enough and it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Korny O'Near knows there's no support for his interpretation of the source material, and no matter how many editors explain why, he's going to keep asking questions in an effort to keep the discussion going. In my opinion, the discussion is over. If you don't like it, I'll suggest again you take your concerns to an administrator. Ewen Douglas (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

No offense, but once again you've contributed nothing to this discussion except personal rancor. If you don't like this particular discussion, you don't have to get involved in it. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

No offense, but your attempts to portray King in a more positive light run directly contrary to WP:NPOV, and as such, they will not be implemented in this article. Ewen Douglas (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing a quote, while keeping a summary of that quote, does not violate WP:NPOV. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Stop the confusion

Here is a quote Steve King gave in a 2010 interview: "The president has demonstrated that he has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race—on the side that favors the black person in the case of Professor Gates and Officer Crowley." The average reader of this article might be confused to see that quote - rearranged differently - in two different spots in the article, just two paragraphs away from each other. The reader might be further confused to see that this quote is somehow being used to illustrate two different things: King's thoughts about Obama's supposed pro-black immigration policy, and King's thoughts about racial profiling. And if they thought about it more, they'd probably be even more confused, realizing that this sentence doesn't mention either immigration of black people, or racial profiling. And then if they looked up the original sources, I bet they'd be really confused, since those don't mention black immigration or racial profiling either. (Though the New York Times article is a little confusingly edited, probably in the interests of space because it's a summary article, chopping off the "Professor Gates and Officer Crowley" bit to make it sound like that sentence was about immigration - which by the way the Wikipedia article currently repeats almost word for word, in some apparent light plagiarism.)

Yes, we can only go by what reliable sources say. But that New York Times article, which devotes exactly two sentences to the 2010 interview, doesn't seem like an ideal source anyway. Most sources about the 2010 interview make it much clearer what King was getting at - like this CBS News article, also cited, which doesn't mention racial profiling at all, and specifically notes that the immigration King was talking about was of Latinos, into Arizona.

So why the needless duplication, why the confusion, and why the (in the case of "racial profiling") original research? I can only surmise that some editors here are driven by such a strong anti-Steve King bias that they resist any change that might make him look more coherent. Whatever the motivation, I think it's clear that the current wording is much more confusing than it needs to be. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

If there is a better source let's god with that then. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

User conduct concerns should be discussed on user talk pages, or at WP:ANI or WP:AE if serious. - MrX 🖋 11:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Korny O'Near (talk) is not being completely honest about his intentions here. He's been on a slow-motion one-man campaign to cast Steve King in a more positive light for a while, and his latest mission is to remove sourced info from the "Racial profiling" of the article. I have no issue with adding a new reliable source, but Korny's recent edits have all focused on his attempts at removal, and this latest ploy of "a better source" is intended to mask what he's really been doing. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC) This is about the 10th time you've accused me of bad faith edits, with no evidence at all. (I'm still waiting to hear the results of your weeks-long study of my Wikipedia edits, by the way.) Please find a single reliable source that says that King's statements in the 2010 interview - and that one sentence of his specifically - have to do with racial profiling, and thus belong in a section called "Racial profiling". Korny O'Near (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Please list the "10 times" that anyone has "accused" you of bad-faith edits. Because that's a fabrication on your part. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Here, here, here, here and most notably here. (Plus an unrelated personal attack here.) My apologies, it was only the fifth time, not the tenth. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC) So you admit you lied. Ewen Douglas (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC) Nope - but that's #6. Seriously, stop with the personal attacks. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

"Undocumented immigrants"

This article uses the term "undocumented immigrants" in one place. I'm aware that it's a term currently favored by the left in the United States, but on Wikipedia it's an unhelpful term because (a) it's inaccurate - lots of people in the U.S. illegally have documentation, and (b) it may not make sense to people outside the United States, unaware of the latest euphemisms. "Illegal immigrants" and "illegal aliens" are both standard terms, whose meaning is much clearer. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It is used 23 times in our article Illegal immigration to the United States, so your assertion that it's unhelpful on Wikipedia seems incorrect. Can you point to a style guide or two to support your position?- MrX 🖋 21:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Its use in an article doesn't prove whether it's helpful or not. (And I should note that "illegal immigrants" appears quite a bit more often in that same article.) I do wish there was a Wikipedia guideline on this. But don't you find "undocumented" bizarre, given that there's often no lack of documentation? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Not so much bizarre as just vague and euphemistic. But so is "illegal immigrants", (vague, not euphemistic). An immigrant is a person. The person is not illegal; their presence in the U.S. is. "Unauthorized immigrant" is clearer. This may help.- MrX 🖋 22:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a perfectly acceptable term, and everyone knows what it refers to. When we say "whites" and "blacks" in the context of skin color, we don't necessarily literally mean they have white and black skin color. It's the same with the term "undocumented immigrants". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

"Unauthorized immigrant" sounds better too. I agree that "illegal immigrant" is not quite right; that's why I prefer "illegal alien", where "illegal" is a modifier of their current status, not of the person themselves. But all of three of these other terms are better - and, yes, clearer - than "undocumented immigrant". Can we change it to one of the other three? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

If the basis of your argument is that the meaning of the phrase "undocumented immigrant" is not commonly understood, then I think it falls flat. It can be changed to one of the other three if you gain consensus to do so. - MrX 🖋 12:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you really know how well the phrase "undocumented immigrant" is understood by English speakers outside the U.S.? In any case, I'm curious to hear what others think. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

"Illegal Alien" is the legal and most precise term. Why do we need to bow to political correctness?--Jsniessen (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

::: Your opinion that "'Illegal Alien' is the legal and most precise term" seems to be just that - an opinion. Do you have any reliable sources that back that statement up? Ewen Douglas (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

According Bryan A. Garner's "A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage" (ISBN-10: 0195077695): “Illegal alien” is the legally precise and preferred term: The usual and preferable term in American English is illegal alien. The other forms have arisen as needless euphemisms, and should be avoided as near-gobbledygook. The problem with undocumented is that it is intended to mean, by those who use it in this phrase, "not having the requisite documents to enter or stay in a country legally. But the word strongly suggests "unaccounted for" to those unfamiliar with this quasi-legal jargon, and it may therefore obscure the meaning. That statement is only equivocally correct, however: although illegal aliens' presence in the country is no crime, their entry into the country is. As Justice Brennan wrote in Plyler v. Doe, "Unsanctioned entry in the United States is a crime, 8 U.S.C. € 1325."2 Moreover, it is wrong to equal illegality with criminality, inasmuch as many illegal acts are not criminal. Illegal alien is not an opprobrious epithet: it describes one present in a country in violation of the immigration laws (hence "illegal").--Jsniessen (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The DOJ officially uses the term "Illegal alien", as acknowledged by CNN, which follows the AP Stylebook instead of the legally precise term: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/justice-department-illegal-aliens-undocumented/index.html --Jsniessen (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

"Professor Gates and Officer Crowley" quote

Here we go again... apparently even the most obvious improvements to this article now require a talk page discussion. So, in a 2010 interview, Steve King said, "The president has demonstrated that he has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race—on the side that favors the black person in the case of Professor Gates and Officer Crowley". This quote is included twice in the article, in two consecutive sections: "President Barack Obama" and "Racial profiling". I wasn't aware that it was ever good practice to include a quote twice in the same article, but in this case, its inclusion in "Racial profiling" doesn't even really make sense, since whether or not Gates was arrested due to racial profiling remains an open question. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

: You're doing a quite a bit of WP:OR here. The quote is relevant in both sections, and it's sourced, and there's nothing that says it can't exist twice in the same article, so I don't see any problem that needs to be corrected. Ewen Douglas (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, it seems like the current wording is what's engaging in original research - or, at the very least, synthesis. I believe the police officers involved in Gates' arrest consistently denied that there was any racial profiling. And in any case, racial profiling did not come up in that interview with King. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

::: Well, I must say I'm amused by this new tactic - pretending that racial profiling was not an issue in the Gates arrest case. Go on, pull the other one! Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not "pretending" anything, and please assume good faith. Some people say it was, and some people say it wasn't - unless you can point to some proof that it was racial profiling, putting a quote about the Gates arrest in the context of racial profiling will always constitute synthesis. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

::::: Numerous reliable secondary sources describe the incident as an example of racial profiling. That matters more than your opinion, or my opinion, or the opinion of the police officers involved. That's Wikipedia policy. Ewen Douglas (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

What's an example of that? The article Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy doesn't seem to contain one, unless you count Al Sharpton as a reliable source. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

::::::: The Dallas News, the Chicago Tribune, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Boston Globe... but this is an exercise in futility. I suspect I could list 100 examples and you'd find a new argument to push your POV. I believe I've made my case. If you believe otherwise, it is time for you to seek out support from other editors on your attempted edits. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I admire your effort, but the Chicago Tribune doesn't say it, the Philadelphia Enquirer doesn't say it, the Boston Globe piece is an op-ed, and the Dallas News doesn't really say it (only that racial profiling was discussed at the "beer summit"). It looks like you're the one trying to push a POV, by trying to shoehorn a duplicate (!) quote into a section called "Racial profiling" even though King never talked about racial profiling in that interview, and it wasn't necessarily racial profiling to begin with. Let me ask you this: if Prof. Gates were Muslim, should this same quote also go into the "Anti-Muslim beliefs" section? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

::::::::: All of those sources describe the incident as part of the racial profiling debate in the United States. Perhaps your reading comprehension needs improvement; if you feel otherwise, this has become a dead end. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that, in one of the instances, we find a way to paraphrase "He also accused former President Barack Obama of advancing immigration policies based on race."[10] rather than use the quote twice. I think that would make a better presentation. Perhaps something like

King speculated that Obama's immigration policies were influenced by racial favoritism toward blacks.

- MrX 🖋 18:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with that suggestion. Ewen Douglas (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Is that for the "racial profiling" section? Because racial favoritism in immigration is not the same thing as racial profiling. But maybe I'm missing something. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we could use it to replace the quote in President Barack Obama and leave the quote in the Racial profiling section.- MrX 🖋 19:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Even though King never talked about racial profiling in the interview? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Racial profiling applies to immigration enforcement.- MrX 🖋 19:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's backtrack here. The context for this quote - during an interview with G. Gordon Liddy, in 2010 - was that King was defending the recently-passed Arizona SB 1070 act, which allows police officers to ask for a person's ID if they think there's a reasonable suspicion they're an illegal alien. Obama criticized the act, and King stated that - to paraphrase - this was Obama's M.O.: reflexively taking the pro-minority side of a law enforcement issue. Now, Gates' arrest was criticized as racial profiling - as we've already established - and SB 1070 has also been criticized as racial profiling. However, the pro-police side, if you want to call it that, of both issues has stated that these are not about racial profiling. And King wasn't talking about racial profiling in the interview. So putting a quote from this interview into a "Racial profiling" section may be a case of double or even triple synthesis. But maybe equally importantly, it's just confusing to readers: why is this quote in this section? To understand that, you'd have to (a) know and believe that Gates' arrest was racial profiling, (b) know that King was defending SB 1070, (c) know and believe that SB 1070 is racial profiling, and (d) understand both connections between the two issues: King's connection and this article's attempted connection. And for what payoff? Unless there's going to be a lot of context added here, it just doesn't seem to make sense. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

:::::: I'm unswayed by these arguments, which make a lot of unsupported assumptions. MrX's wording seems fine to me. Ewen Douglas (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

There has been sufficient analysis in reliable sources that Gate's arrest may have been racial profiling to justify the current material in that section. You can keep defending King by narrowly interpreting his comments to fit a certain viewpoint, but you have not made a convincing case for us to do so in this article. - MrX 🖋 21:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to defend King, I'm trying to make this article as accurate as possible. And speaking of accuracy, your proposed summary of his statement seems way off: it's not Obama's immigration policy, it's Obama's view of Arizona's immigration policy; and the racial group affected is not blacks but Hispanics. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

My summary is a paraphrase of what is written in the New York Times. It's not a summary of his statement; it's a summary of the source's summary of his statement in the context of his other statements.- MrX 🖋 23:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

::::::::Korny O'Near, I've been seeing your edits and your talk page comments for weeks now. I'm assuming good faith when I say that your body of work makes a convincing case that you are trying to defend King here. I realize that most editors can't take the time to scrutinize every single one of your edits, but if my word means anything, I would testify to the above in any court of law. It's plainly obvious, and your statement above that you're "not trying to defend King" is quite preposterous, based on your own actions and words. Ewen Douglas (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Ewen - okay... of all the comments I've gotten on Wikipedia over the years, yours might be the strangest. I know we're supposed to be talking about Steve King here, but I'll bite: when did you start reviewing my edits, and why? And what is the evidence you've found that would enable you to testify about my biases in, um, a court of law? Korny O'Near (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, no response. I guess all that time spent reviewing my edits was just a waste? Anyway, I think it's obvious at this point that a quote about Prof. Gates' arrest doesn't belong in a section called "Racial profiling". If you don't believe me, try this exercise: create a coherent sentence (backed up by the citations) that combines the terms "Steve King", "Gates arrest" and "racial profiling". For the "President Obama" section it's easy to do: "In a 2010 interview, Steve King criticized President Obama for taking the pro-black, anti-police side in the Gates arrest, saying it was Obama's 'default mechanism'." Now try doing one with "racial profiling" instead - it can't be done, because there's no direct connection between these three things. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

: You've obviously received many responses within this discussion. It appears that you are alone in your assessment of the changes you want, and the rest of the editors that have discussed this with you disagree with you. At some point, further discussion just becomes an example of, I believe the appropriate page is, WP:DEADHORSE. Ewen Douglas (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It's true that I'm "alone", although there's only two of you, so it's hardly an overwhelming majority. And your own comments have been almost entirely personal attacks, so as far as an actual "discussion", maybe it's just been one to one. But since we're already talking, I still want to know - what have been the findings of your research into me? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

::: If you feel you have been personally attacked, you should immediately file a report at WP:ANI. Aside from that, I would suggest you keep this discussion focused on content. Ewen Douglas (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I have been personally attacked, by you - but I don't feel a need to take it the authorities. But if you spent half the time "focused on content" that you've spent criticizing me, we probably could have settled this discussion a while ago. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Blacks or minorities

The above discussion is apparently for naught because Korny O'Near in this edit insists on using WP:OR to suppress the fact that King said "The president has demonstrated that he has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race, on the side that favors the black person,". What I don't understand is why Korny O'Near think's his opinion supersedes that of two other editors and the source itself.- MrX 🖋 19:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for restarting this discussion. We know from common sense that the specific issue Steve King was talking about in that 2010 interview, the Arizona SB 1070 act, does not directly relate to black people. So presumably the gist of the current summary in the Wikipedia article is that Steve King has no idea what he's talking about. Which is certainly possible. But I think it's clear that King was indeed making a coherent point (whether it's correct is a different story). He was lumping in Obama's pro-black and pro-Latino views under one umbrella, saying that Obama "has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race". In other words, in King's view, Obama will always take the side of the non-white person or group in a dispute. He justified this view with two separate examples: Obama's statements on Arizona SB 1070, and his statements on the Gates arrest. Now, King obviously could have stated all this more articulately, but I think that basic analogy is clear. And note that the New York Times article doesn't say he was talking about blacks in the context of immigration; it said that King "accused former President Barack Obama of advancing immigration policies based on race". Which indeed King was. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

No, we don't know that, nor is there anything common about you refer to as sense. I reject your personal analysis in favor of reliable sources and King's own words, which are impeccably clear and consistent with his well-documented history of promoting white supremacy.- MrX 🖋 00:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe he promotes white supremacy, but surely he doesn't believe that Mexicans are black? Also, I don't know of a reliable source that backs up the article's current wording. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The cited source says: [King] also accused former President Barack Obama of advancing immigration policies based on race. "The president has demonstrated that he has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race, on the side that favors the black person," he said in a radio interview in 2010. MrX's proposed text mirrors the source very closely ("In 2010, King speculated that Obama's immigration policies were influenced by racial favoritism toward blacks."). I don't think this is a super-important issue, but the sources do seem to back up MrX on this one. MastCell ^Talk 01:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Really? What does that even mean, to have immigration policies influenced by racial favoritism toward blacks, in the context of immigration from Mexico? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

:::::: You just added "in the context of immigration from Mexico?" yourself. The source is talking about all immigration, INCLUDING, but not limited to, immigration from Mexico. Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

He was talking about immigration in the context of Arizona, where immigrants are, I believe, overwhelmingly Latino. But let's say you're right and he was just talking about immigration in general. What's the pro-black side on immigration from non-African countries? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, your dispute is apparently with the New York Times. We are not here to debate semantics or you unique analysis of King's immigration views. This would be a great opportunity for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK.- MrX 🖋 16:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No it's not. As I noted before, the NYT article says that King "accused former President Barack Obama of advancing immigration policies based on race". Which is accurate. The NYT article doesn't say that King said Obama's immigration policies were pro-black, and it also doesn't say that King advocated racial profiling, and yet the Wikipedia article currently draws both of those conclusions from that article. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC) : "The president has demonstrated that he has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race, on the side that favors the black person" - I think we're done here. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I know what he said, but he wasn't talking about immigration in that specific sentence. I'd still love to hear what you think a "pro-black immigration policy" is. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

::: You're missing the point - it does not matter what I think a "pro-black immigration policy" is, nor what you think a "pro-black immigration policy", or any editor. What's said in the source is the only thing that matters. You're free to go start your own online encyclopedia where you get to add your interpretation of sources everywhere. But you don't get to do that here. And with that said, I'm truly done this time. Good day. Ewen Douglas (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, whether or not you stay in this discussion, I thank you for modifying the wording in the article to be a little more defensible; although the current wording might be a little too close to the NYT's, and thus veering toward plagiarism. Obviously we have to match what the sources say, but in the case of inartful off-the-cuff statements, as King's was, we also have to apply some common sense, or else we end up with sentences in the article that literally no one can explain. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

::::: You need to look up the definition of plagiarism. There's certainly no plagiarism in this section of the article. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Korny is just (inadvertently) confirming rule #5. MastCell ^Talk 01:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

::::::: That's a fairly dead-on assessment, I have to say. I've bookmarked that page. You, sir, are a genius. Ewen Douglas (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you got me there! Actually, in this case it's true: first the article plagiarized (a long phrase - "accused ... Obama of advancing immigration policies based on race" - clearly lifted from the source), then it was changed to simply misquote the source (King never talked about an immigration "influenced by racial favoritism toward blacks", nor did the NYT or anyone else say he did). Really, the problem started when a source was used that was only two sentences long, instead of much more informative sources that could be more easily summarized. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

::::::::: You sound as though you're getting emotional about this article. Perhaps that means it's time to step away from it for a while. Ewen Douglas (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

One nice thing about discussing things with you on talk pages is that it's very easy to tell when I've made a point you can't refute - you immediately jump to either a personal attack or an "enough already", or (as in this case) both. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:RACIST/WP:LABEL

@Snooganssnoogans: I don't intend to waste any more time than is necessary on this, but by stating in Wikipedia's voice that King has a history of using racist rhetoric we are taking a position on an issue where there exists reasonable controversy. It is not enough to say that there are many RS that make the same claim, because this isn't a point of fact but rather an opinion (for the record, I believe that King does use racist rhetoric). This is very similar to the disagreement that resulted in this RfC. We have the WP:LABEL guideline for a good reason. The WP:VOICE policy is also very explicit about this—see the example given. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I played a big role in vetoing the "associated with white nationalism" label, and my reason why was simple: there was not sufficiently strong sourcing. The sourcing for "racist comments" is extremely strong, and I believe I've obtained pretty strong support for including the language in two discussions on the BLP noticeboard[11][12] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I wasn't clear above. The WP:VOICE policy says the following about this issue:

"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.""

WP:RS is the standard for the inclusion of content. The fact that numerous RS have characterised his rhetoric as racist means that the article must include discussion of this issue (per WP:RS/WP:DUE etc), but crucially that doesn't mean that we need to state this view in Wikipedia's voice, as though it was a point of fact. The policy gives the example of genocide—if Wikipedia cannot state that genocide is evil, it can hardly state that King's rhetoric is racist. The lead should instead say that his rhetoric has been widely characterised as racist, or something similar. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

"Evil" is a purely subjective label, which is why the example uses it as something we can never say in wikipedia's voice. Something being racist is something that can be, with good enough sourcing, said in wikipedia's voice. A comment can provably be racist, it cannot provably be evil. Parabolist (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Racism is provable, but there really has to be overwhelming evidence of it - especially for people who deny that they're racist, and especially for living people who deny that they're racist. In this case, the evidence that he's truly racist is flimsy. Let me especially note the New York Times analysis "A Timeline of Steve King’s Racist Remarks and Divisive Actions", which is one of three citations currently given for the assertion that King is racist, and arguably the only one that bolsters the statement that King "has a long history of racist and anti-immigrant rhetoric". I encourage anyone to read that analysis - it's pretty shoddy work; most of the statements there, like supporting English as an official language of the U.S., and saying that Western civilization is superior to other cultures, may be controversial but are not racist; and some of the statements listed are even anti-racist, like when he criticized multiculturalism as "a tool for the Left to subdivide a culture and civilization into our own little ethnic enclaves and pit us against each other." Stating instead that many have called him racist is much more defensible. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This section is about applying the term to "rhetoric", not to him. That was my whole point about wikipedia's voice. Parabolist (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I should have been more precise, but being racist is pretty much defined by the things one says. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Parabolist: Can you clearly explain how the description "racist" is "purely subjective" in a way that the description "evil" isn't? All I can see at the moment is bald assertion. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Both descriptions are opinions rather than points of fact, and people will have varying standards for what counts as racism. This is why this should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice, per our policy. I agree that in instances where there is no any reasonable disagreement it would be acceptable to describe something as racist, but in this instance we are explicitly taking a position on an issue where there is reasonable controversy. This is why the policy and the guidelines (WP:RACIST) exist. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

:::::::: I don't think "a long history of racist and anti-immigrant rhetoric and white-nationalist affiliations" is stating anything "in Wikipedia's voice" - it's merely summarizing what the reliable sources say about King's rhetoric and his affiliations with white-nationalist groups. Yes, the sourcing needs to be strong for a statement like that, but the sourcing IS strong here, so I don't see a problem. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be a deadlock here. Time for an RfC? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's actually a deadlock. There has been, and still appears to be, a general consensus that King's comments are accurately described as racist, since they're described as such by reliable sources. Consensus can change, of course, but you also can't just keep asking the same question until you get the answer you want. MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::: Oh, Korney most certainly can. And probably will. Ewen Douglas (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ewen Douglas: If something is stated "in Wikipedia's voice", the encyclopedia is made to positively make a claim about something, rather than simply report what has been stated elsewhere in reliable sources. This is fine for points of fact or issues where there is little controversy, but explicitly not fine (per WP:VOICE) in this instance, as I explained above. For example: "King's rhetoric has been widely characterised as racist" obviously does not state the claim in Wikipedia's voice, merely reporting what has been stated elsewhere in RS, whereas the statement "King has a history of racist rhetoric" places the claim in Wikipedia's voice, so that the encyclopedia is itself making the claim contained in the sources. Can you see the difference?

@MastCell: If there is any deadlock, it is because the users above have simply refused to acknowledge my point about the WP:VOICE policy. A succession of users have insisted that a large number of RS have used this description, which I am not disputing, but there isn't yet any consensus about the consistency of the lead with policy. Endymion.12 (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::::: Your two examples say exactly the same thing. The only difference is that to say "widely characterised as racist" makes the article a bit more complimentary to King, as it implies that "oh, some people claim that King has said racist things, but we don't really know if he has." I don't agree with that approach. I believe the article should state what reliable sources state, and that's where it stands now. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you are intellectually incapable of understanding [obstinately unwilling to understand] the difference between two very different ways of presenting this information [as clearly outlined in Wikipedia policy] should not mean that we overlook site policy. I would also be interested to know how you are so familiar with Wikipedia process despite only having been editing since October (on that account at least). Endymion.12 (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::::::: This seems to be a clear violation of WP:NPA, and I would appreciate an apology before I consider asking for admin action on it. Ewen Douglas (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Since no one here actually seems interested in following the relevant policies, or even trying to understand my perspective, I'm not going to bother pursuing this any further. This is essentially trivial anyway. Endymion.12 (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with you. And I don't think this discussion is trivial at all. I still think an RfC makes sense, since I get the sense that the people drawn to editing this article are not that representative of the overall editing community. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC) : That's pure and unadulterated WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ewen Douglas (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: For the record, you explicitly don't agree with me, per this comment, which is precisely the opposite of what I have been arguing. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I still think we agree... maybe you misunderstood my comment? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP and opinion pieces

David Leonhardt in an opinion piece for The New York Times has explicitly identified King as being a "white nationalist".[115] Does Leonhardt's personal opinion of King become noteworthy and acceptable for inclusion under WP:BLP, simply because it is published in a reliable source? If, say, Bloomberg or WSJ published an opinion piece describing a Democrat as a "communist" or "antifa sympathizer", would that also be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? Because I don't think that's in the spirit of BLP as I understand it, but if that's wrong then I would like to know about it. (Preemptive note for those who wish to advise me to log in: I have no account with which to do so, and no interest in obtaining one.) 70.31.158.12 (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

White supremacist

Request page protection from admin. Disruptive behaviour (removing sourced material - 6 citations - without cause) from IPs and Endymion.12. Briefly restored by Gamaliel. Thank you. Eurostatter (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Eurostatter Consensus is required on Wikipedia. These are clearly contentious changes, and as I explained on your talk page, per WP:VNOTSUFF: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Endymion.12 (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I removed that. It's a WP:BLP violation, full stop. This is not how we integrate issues of white supremacy into Wikipedia articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Please feel free take it to BLPN to better gauge consensus as to the edit's BLP status. But, as another uninvolved admin, I concur. I also semiprotected the page against further BLP-violating edit warring. El_C 22:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, the governor didn't support him nor does the Iowa GOP. Is this an intentional error?50.82.181.136 (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 loss

Looking for, will add soon Wikipietime (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Addition - attendance at AF Conference supporting Nick Fuentes. Citation BBC documentary February 2022 Louis Theroux

Addition - attendance at AF Conference supporting Nick Fuentes. Citation BBC documentary February 2022 Louis Theroux [I do not have the sills to do this] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.253.130 (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)