Talk:William R. King

message: An email I received today from the Senate Historian's office, stated:
Hello Mark -I took a look through our files and it is true that there are conflicting sources on this date even at the primary source level (several news sources gave varying reports).  It appears that most sources, including the Senate Journal in 1853 and primary correspondence from the National Archives, indicate that the date was March 24, 1853.Mary BaumannResearcher - WriterU.S. Senate Historical Office
So now what do we do? --Mark Adler 00:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should report that there is a controversy over exactly when he took the oath.  We should find out when Congress passed that bill relating to this inaugural.  Since the VP is the President of the Senate, I would cite the Senate historian's interpretation in the article text itself, and then footnote the fact that there is uncertainty on the issue. NoSeptember 09:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Senate Historian

message: I suggest this section be removed entirely. A U.S. Senator, like King, would have many relationships with people, so singling out one person is deceptive. The quote from Buchanan is unsourced, the Klein biography barely mentions King, and the whole idea that one modern historian "speculates" about the private lives of people who have been dead for 160 years seems inappropriate at best. Since the section says there is no evidence to support the claim, the claim itself should be deleted.Catherinejarvis (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The relationship between King and Buchanan is not "random gossip". It is likely it was romantic, and perhaps even physical. Can I suggest you show a degree of more sensitivity to the subject. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I, um, admire your perspicacity in being the direct descendant of a man who had no children. "William Rufus" was a reasonably popular name in that branch of the family, though. Choess (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with Buchanan section 

message: I added refs for County Ordinance and State Law that resulted in King County, Washington current name source. 
Also can't resist quoting part of the County Ordinance:
Motion No. 6461
A MOTION setting forth the historical basis for "renaming" King County after the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., instead of William Rufus DeVane King for whom King County is currently named. 
WHEREAS, the County of King in the State of Washington was named after William Rufus Devane King by the Oregon Territorial legislature in 1852, and
WHEREAS, William Rufus DeVane King was a slaveowner and a 'gentle slave monger' according to John Quincy Adams, and
WHEREAS, the citizens of King County believe that the ownership of another human being is an injustice against humanity, and
WHEREAS, William Rufus DeVane King earned income and maintained his lifestyle by oppressing and exploiting other human beings, and 
(etc.)
Doug C., a KC resident --71.231.231.232 (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: King County, WA being later renamed for MLK

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on William R. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810123804/http://www.alabamamoments.state.al.us/sec09.html to http://www.alabamamoments.state.al.us/sec09.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: God knows what the first and the last adjectives are really supposed to mean, but they're not neutral. The language was added by User:Contaldo80 back a couple of years ago, and on top of that it is a direct quote from the source, p. 247, though without page numbers and quotation marks. At any rate, it is so overwhelmingly non-neutral that it needs to go, and it actually incriminates the source as well, which on p. 233 says "historian Paul Boller Jr. agreed that Buchanan was effeminate and something of a wimp"--without batting an eye lid gayness is here equated with being soft, effeminate, and a wimp. I would have expected better from Wikipedia editors, and that it was still in here after over five years is really disappointing. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Both men were soft, eccentric, and effeminate"