Talk:Peter King (sportswriter)

Overemphasis on Web Column

King is one of the great writers in football history, and it was disappointing to see so much space devoted to his web column and no mention of anything else. I added a brief sketch of the rest of his career, but this article need more work ro achieve the proper balance. --Sportswriter 01:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral POV

How can this article remotely be thought to be neutral POV? -In the first section, the part about Cam Newton should probably be deleted. Deleted this:

"As a popular writer and major contributor to the decline of modern sports journalism, the integrity of King's writing has often been called into question by fans and other sportswriters alike. Most notably, his harsh commentary on the character of Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton before he was drafted persisted throughout the first three years of Newton's career. When Newton finished a game-winning drive with a touchdown pass to Domenik Hixon against the New Orleans Saints on December 22, 2013, King's criticism of the quarterback was called into question once again. He was last seen later that same day face-down in a gutter with a crow shoved into his rectum." The last bit about Art Monk is clearly not neutral, and I dont think its true either.

-"I dont think its true either" While the statement may not be neutral it is factual. Peter King is one of the 39 people who gets to vote on the HOF and he is very outspoken in his refusal to vote for Monk. See [1]Unklelemmy 20:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted this: "His arrogance makes his columns difficult to swallow." for obvious reasons. Deleted this: "King's credibility has recently been damaged by his capricious and arbitrary opposition to allowing Washington Redskin great Art Monk into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. King's increasingly defensive and incoherent rants on the subject have led to accusations of geographical bias." His opposition is not arbitrary. The debate over Art Monk is contentious, and King is not the only one against him (obviously, since he does not have the only hall of fame vote). You can include his opposition to Monk's worthiness for the Hall, but do it in a neutral way. There has been no general questioning of King's credibility or accusations of geographical bias. And yes I am a Redskins fan, so don't holler at me.

Does he really get to be considered "outspoken" for "chiding" Fox about Temptation Island? I'm pretty sure tons of people thought it was pretty dumb back then too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.54.37 (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Section on Pop Culture References should be deleted

The section on pop culture references should be deleted as trivia64.81.56.234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC).

The section shows the effect he has had on sports writing. It is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.39.0.202 (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peter King (sportswriter). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/11/07/Week9/3.html
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20060813161648/http%3A//snfonnbc.com/ to http://snfonnbc.com/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)