Talk:William R. King

Controversy

Considering the controversy over exactly whom King County, Washington is named for, should we add a note to this entry? I imagine it's the only major thing still bearing his name, but don't want to suggest a non-NPOV on the question of which King is honored by King County. Just curious: I'm new here, and don't want to step on toes. -- Jwrosenzweig

I don't have a problem with it Smith03

I deleted the reference to being sworn in at Havana. He was sworn in by the American consul at Havana, but the oath was not administered in that city. PedanticallySpeaking

March 4 or March 24

King was sworn in as Vice President on March 24, yet his term began on March 4 (according to the US Constitution). When did he become VP? Mightberight/wrong 19:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC).

When his term began. john k 05:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Just as I thought, March 4. Have you noticed in the articles Vice President of the United States & List of Vice Presidents of the USA length of time in office (also vp vacancies) the date seems to always be March 24? It seems there's 2 interpretations? 1) a person becomes VP when term begins (by date) or 2) a person becomes VP when the oath of office is administered. PS. I agree March 4 is correct Mightberight/wrong 1:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC).

• I've corrected both lists. March 4 is the correct date. The Oath does not make someone the officer. --Mark Adler 18:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

His Congressional biography indicates his swearing in was also on March 4th, not the 24th. The other independent sources I have found agree with this. It is possible he had multiple oaths (the first one counts, as did Calvin Coolidge's first swearing in by his father who was only a justice of the peace). Given the Congressional biography, we need sourcing for the 24th and that any previous oath he may have taken was invalid, before we can assert that he was not sworn in on the 4th. NoSeptember 02:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right. The only support for March 24 seems to be the Senate's web site, http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_William_R_King.htm, which states,

In November, King began to suffer from a worsening cough. A month later, he described himself as looking like a skeleton and told friends he doubted that he would ever recover. On December 20, two weeks into the short December-March congressional session, King resigned his Senate seat and made plans to regain his health away from wintertime Washington. On January 17, 1853, King left for the more salutary climate of Cuba, by way of Key West, Florida; he reached Havana in early February. Soon realizing that he would be unable to return to Washington in time for the March 4, 1853, inauguration, King requested that Congress permit him to take his oath in Cuba. Consequently, for the only time in this nation's history, Congress passed legislation allowing the vice-president-elect to be sworn in outside the country. On March 24, 1853, near Matanzas, a seaport town sixty miles east of Havana, the gravely ill statesman, too feeble to stand unaided, became the nation's thirteenth vice president. Deciding that he would make every effort to return to the United States, King set sail for Mobile on April 6. He reached his Alabama plantation on April 17, but his struggle was at an end. The sixty-seven-year-old King died there the following day. An opposition newspaper praised his "purity and patriotism" and concluded, "[t]hough not, perhaps, brilliant, he was better—sensible, honest, never running into ultraism, but in the contests between the State and the federal government, maintaining the true conservative medium, so necessary to the preservation of the constitution, the rights of the States and the Republic."

This conflicts with the other sources, however, including the usually-reliable Congressional Bioguide. Here's another source in support of March 4, which User:NoSeptember sent me: http://www.alabamastuff.com/wrk.html. It has this curious statement:

I am writing to you to give you some more information on the inauguration of Mr. King in Cuba. As reported in your write up, you say that he was inaugurated in Havana Cuba. I would like to clarify that point. He was inaugurated on my great-great grandfathers plantation in Matanzas Cuba. I have investigated this and found an article in the archives of the New York Herald dated March 12, 1853, and again on March 19,1853. He was sworn in at the 'Ariadne' Plantation of Col. John Chartrand. If you desire, I can send you more information in the future. Thank you. C. Richard Chartrand.

I recommend we continue to investigate this for a definitive source. I've contacted the Senate's Historian and I'm hoping for a reply soon.

As a sidenote, it still remains that his term began on March 4, regardless of the oath. But I don't think that's what we're discussing here.

--Mark Adler 11:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Part of the problem may be that the constitution does not define who may administer an oath, only that the office holder must take the oath. If King read the oath out loud from a piece of paper on March 4th, he satisfied the constitutional requirement, and if a Cuban official conducted it, he satisfied the requirement also. The subsequent oath taking could have been done for the avoiding of any disputes. There are many instances of office holders taking the oath multiple times (For example, big inauguration ceremonies on Sunday have been avoided for religious reasons, so a private ceremony on Sunday would be followed by the public event on Monday). The solution for this article may be to delete any reference to the oath and just go with the date he took office. NoSeptember 12:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the oath is irrelevant for any reason other than interesting history. I think, however, it should be kept in this article (William R. King) only, but not other articles (e.g. List of U.S. Vice Presidents by time in office). --Mark Adler 18:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

His physical location outside the US at the start of his term (and the reason for it, illness) is the interesting thing, not the date. If the date can be confirmed, of course, we can easily keep it. NoSeptember 18:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Hmmm… The Havana thing is really interesting. The date, if true, is still a small bit of trivia worth keeping here and leaving for the sake clarifying future researchers' confusion. Let's see if we can verify it. --Mark Adler 18:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Senate Historian

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 Baumann
Researcher - Writer
U.S. Senate Historical Office

So now what do we do? --Mark Adler 00:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) (PS- Thanks to Ms. Baumann for her help!)

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)

Relationship with Buchanan section

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) Furthermore, the citation of Boller's book is misleading. He uses the Andrew Jackson quote without offering a source for it. Later in the same paragraph he talks about King's winning the vice presidency, and cites Klein, but Klein does not use the Jackson quote. Boller is citing Kein on the vice presidency, so there is no actual source for the derogatory quote. Again, the whole section is unsubstantiated gossip about someone from long ago.Catherinejarvis (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC) The additional source citation for the quote on Buchanan is good and will remain. However, Wikipedia is not a place to print random insults between politicians. If it was, whole articles would be full of accusations among political rivals. The Boller speculation, in particular, must be removed. This is not a forum for gossip. see WP:SOAP and WP:NOTGOSSIP.Catherinejarvis (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

I am the great, great, great grandson of William Rufus King. For my whole life of 67 years my father and my aunt have spoken of him and our family which is documented in the family Bible. So I do not believe the information of a missing wife and family are accurate.

Scraab2001 (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

King County, WA being later renamed for MLK

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)

External links modified

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.

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) 11:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Both men were soft, eccentric, and effeminate"

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)

Edit warring

@Robertus Pius: Please refrain from edit-warring. The onus is on those seeking to include disputed content to gain consensus for it, which in this case is yourself. If you don't wish to discuss that's your business, but that means it stays out. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The artist was included in the caption for years before you decided to remove it. You had no consensus to do so. Quite a few editors have openly disagreed with you, but, subsequent discussions go nowhere. You do not want to compromise. If MOS: credits says it’s “discouraged,” but also says “it may be appropriate” to add the artist in the captions if they’re “independently notable,” then you should get consensus to remove them entirely. As previously said, the artists have been included in most of the articles you’ve changed for years. Thus meaning every editor who edited the article over those years didn’t have a problem including crediting the artists in the caption. You should really get consensus to remove the artists, but, I’m pretty sure you won’t, as you haven’t done so thus far even though it’s been discussed before. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 00:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The full quote is "If the artist or photographer is independently notable, then a wikilink to their biography may be appropriate, and to the picture or photograph in the rare cases where the image itself is notable enough for its own article. Image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable, since the infobox should contain only key facts of the article's subject, per MOS:INFOBOX. " In other words, it may be appropriate in the general case, but not the specific case of this context.

What compromise would you propose? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

To include notable or more “famous” artists in the captions. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 01:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to do that outside of the infobox, if that would be acceptable for you. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, this whole dilemma is over images in the infobox, not in the articles. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 01:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

As an alternative, we include a link to the artist on the image description page. This has the additional benefit of giving more details about this particular portrait, which is not mentioned at all on the artist's page at the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if it’s ok with you I can go ahead and do that on all the articles you’ve changed. Kind regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 01:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

In most cases that would be done at Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I meant I can add the link to artists in the description for the images in commons. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 02:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine with me. Let me know if you need any help with that - there might be opportunities to provide additional information about the images there as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)