Talk:Don King/Archives/2013

Revertion problem
User:Mexcellent has a problem with this article, and seems to feel that the best way to solve it is to blank the page. I feel that this is vandalism, as apparently do others. I would like to encourage anyone who knows something (that can be sourced) about Don King to contribute to the article and make it a fair and balanced article. As I don't know anything about the man (hence my visiting this page) I can't be of much help, but I'd like to encourage anyone who does to help out to solve the problem. Thanks in advance. Tev 08:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with this article. I have a problem with you adding negative unsourced statements to an article on a living person. Don't do it. It's that simple. Do you see the warning on the top of this very page? Mexcellent 09:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been ported over from my Talk Page, as I feel that the added posts are relevant to this problem. Also, for the record, I did not add negative comments, I restored what I believed to be a vandalised page. I take no responsibility for the content of it in this situation, any more than I would expect the vandalism bot to be given responsibility for it, or any of the others who have reverted the article.
 * That said, I really don't care all that much to begin with, so I wash my hands of the whole thing and leave it you to figure out. Tev 16:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 'The article on Don King was blanked because it contained negative unsourced statements. Please do not revert to a version that contains these statements, as it violates the BLP policy. Mexcellent 08:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, blanking a page for of any reason is called vandalism. If you have a problem with the article then comment on it in the talk page or remove the negative information yourself. Tev 16:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Blanking a page for BLP reasons is not vandalism. You should also be aware that when you restore potentially damaging material, you are the one taking responsibility for it, the same as if you had put it there in the first place. Also, the blocking policy now states "Editors who repeatedly insert unsourced or poorly sourced contentious biographical material about living persons to articles or talk pages may be blocked for disruption. Blocks made for this reason are designed to keep the material off the page until it is written and sourced in accordance with the content policies, including WP:BLP, and should therefore be kept short in the first instance." -Mexcellent 21:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to make a case out of it, go ahead. I'm not taking credit for anything, and when an anti vandalism bot, as well as other users, revert your changes then I'm confident in my position. I frankly don't know a damn thing about Don King, but I'll go by what others do on Wikipedia. If you want to get an admin and have them tell me that you're right, then I'll sincerely apologise and let the whole matter go. Until then, I consider blanking a page vandalism, and will continue to try to remove it when I see it. Do with that as you will. Tev 08:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I don't have any desire to cause problems, I've also posted a plea for(sourced) information on the man on the the talk page for the article. That being said, I do think that blanking a page for any reason is vandalism. If you have that big a problem with it, you should nominate it officially for deletion and let the community decide. Tev 08:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just my (admin's) 2c: I think Mexcellent was right, partial blanking or "cropping back" (with a proper explanation) is definitely not automatically vandalism, if there's a good reason for it. Otherwise, we'd have all our article grow into chaos and never a chance to keep order. In this case, the BLP argument was strong. The fact that the bot is programmed to catch blankings just reflects the fact that many blankings are vandalism, but certainly not all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I agree, the article was wholly inappropriate and contained numerous unsourced negative statements, some of which seemed very unlikely, even.  Stubbing it was an acceptablke thing to do. Morwen - Talk 13:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, well I'm perfectly willing to admit that I might be mistaken here, since I didn't actually end up reading through the article, but when something that is as long as it was is changed to 'Donald "Don" King is a boxing promoter' without any stub tags or much of an explanation in the edit section, then I tend to assume that that's vandalism. Sorry if any problems were caused. Tev 15:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)'

http://www.espn.go.com/classic/biography/s/King_Don.html

There's your source on the murder charge. Now quit deleting FACTS, especially when they are a matter of public record. 68.82.117.128 06:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow
So on one hand he's a murderer, but on the other hand he supports Bush.. I'm quite torn. I guess I'll have to continue not to have an opinion one way or the other on the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would he not want to hang out with his fellow murder buddies?

no info
for such an influential guy and figure in popular culture, there isnt much about him in this article....not even his conviction for murder is mentioned. whats going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.148.247 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 25 June 2007


 * I agree - even the lead section says he's notable merely for his hair and personality! WTF?  That's just wrong. King managed and promoted some of the world's greatest boxers, and set records for the size of the purse he secured for some fights. -Amatulić (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

image issues
The image is not of Don King, but of a wax cast of him. See:

http://fitz.blogspot.com/2007/08/surreal-life.html http://www.flickr.com/photos/19517696@N00/398111930/

Stuartyeates 12:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Whitewash
In the name of BLP this article has been severely and suspiciously sanitized. There is now little to no mention of King's NUMEROUS criminal trials and civil lawsuits (matters of public record), nor his suspected connections to organized crime (for which he was asked to answer by the US Senate in 1992).
 * Why does Don King wear his hair in the style he does? It hides his horns. Heard that funny explanation somwhere on TV, just can't find a source for it. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE! *draws out epic sword* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.208.154 (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Murder Conviction
I am adding convicted murderer to the intro line. It is highly significant. We are not talking about a youthful indiscretion, a speeding ticket, or a dui. He is a public figure, and this is a significant criminal offense, to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.183.184 (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please seek consensus here first, as a change of this nature should be assessed with respect to the biography of living persons policy. I have posted a note at the BLP page requesting additional input here. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz chat spy  16:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He's not famous for his criminal record, he's famous for being a boxing promoter. That is what belongs in the lede.  His legal issues are appropriately covered in the body text. And the word "murderer" is also problematic given that the charge was later reduced to manslaughter.  (By the way, as an editorial matter, I think the hairstyle/personality mention would be more appropriate in the second, or a later, sentence of the lede rather than the first one.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

An ex parte meeting
The section on "Early Life" includes this statement:

This is misleading because the referenced article does not indicate that the change in the murder conviction was based on an "ex parte meeting with King's attorney." An ex parte meeting is one without both sides present and the innuendo is unsupported. This guy is bad enough without adding this additional reference which suggests that the reduction in the conviction to manslaughter was somehow improper. It may have been wrong and the judge may have been subject to some outside influence, but this source does not support that statement. If there is such a source, it should be included. Otherwise, the clause should be removed.--- Komowkwa (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In an ex parte meeting with King's attorney, the judge reduced King's conviction to nonnegligent manslaughter for which King served just under four years in prison.
 * The source is:

Don King: Shannon Briggs
Don King !

Shannon Briggs !