Talk:Stephen King

Removal of "trivia" about King's comments about Kirk killing

One editor has twice unilaterally decided that the well-rounded, well-sourced brief statements describing King's comments about Charlie Kirk's killing, the backlash against King, and King's subsequent apology is trivia, POV, and BLP violation: . Both sides (King's comments, and the reaction) are presented; it's not POV. There is nothing unsourced or defamatory; it's not a BLP violation. It should be restored. Sundayclose (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

See my comment directly above: Talk:Stephen_King#Social_media_posts

The disputed content is:

Two days after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, King posted on X, "He advocated stoning gays to death. Just sayin'." The comment sparked backlash, leading King to issue an apology in a later tweet.^[1]

Please WP:FOC.

How does this incident impact King's life, and how does our including it in an encyclopedia article about King lead to a better understanding of the person? --Hipal (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal I think it's more an issue of WP:DUEness than anything else. It also appears the King did apologize for the comments which I think if anything is added to his page about Kirk this should be included as well. Personally while I am aware of what he said and I also know what he said was factually incorrect (and I did honestly find it offensive) I'm not sure it should be included on the page. King is a writer of horror novels not a political commentator and for a wikipedia page--unless he has somehow switched careers and become a political activist the wikipedia should probably focus on his life's work--books. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

It's the same thing from my perspective and I agree. I'd add that if anything on the topic is presented, it should be very different from the above. --Hipal (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Let's be consistent then. If we only include his activities as an author and don't include anything related to his activism or political commentary, we should then remove the entire "Views and activism" section. That weakens the article. Most public figures are not one-dimensional, and encyclopedias do not present them as such. If you look around Wikipedia you see discussion of political views and other topics related to activism for people who are primarily known for other activities. Two off the top of my head are Toni Morrison and Margaret Atwood. I'm sure there are others. Do we set such a precedent and then start removing similar content in those articles?

And I'll return to my other points. There may be WP:WEIGHT issues, but there are no BLP or POV issues as has been suggested. Sundayclose (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Let's simply follow content policies, rather than look for consistency with content that might not properly follow those policies or might not be relevant to the content under examination.

WEIGHT is a POV issue, POV issues are BLP issues. --Hipal (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I find it to be DUE for his "Views and activism" section. Guz13 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Howso? Please address the policies of concern: NOT, POV, BLP. --Hipal (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

He is a public figure and engages in poltical activism. The question is how much of his views should be presented on the page. Guz13 (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't address the policies directly. --Hipal (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in the "Views and activism" section, with a couple of sentences. What King said about Kirk was not trivial, or it would not have been widely reported on and criticized. There is no BLP issue as King is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and the incident is noteworthy and well documented, which makes it DUE for inclusion. In addition to USA Today, The Hollywood Reporter, New York Daily News, Variety Magazine, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Australian, National Post, all documented it, and they are all WP:GREL. Sometimes celebrities say controversial things and get called out on it, and WP can, and should, include that content in their BLPs as long as it meets the threshold for inclusion, and in my view, it does.— Isaidnoway (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:PUBLICFIGURE is irrelevant. Yes, he's a public figure, but no one is saying that this is an issue of privacy.

WP:NOTDIARY states, Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.

WP:NOTNEWS states, Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. --Hipal (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Concur. Social media posts are very unlikely to be due. Simonm223 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)