Talk:Troy King

Top 10 Anti-Gay Activists Caught Being Gay
This needs to be addressed in his wiki-article: http://www.google.com/search?q=troy%20king%20alabama%20gay&hl=en&sa=X&tbo=1&ei=K_mwS53MOofgsQOXt-CIDA&oi=tool&resnum=0&ct=tlink&ved=0CAsQpwU http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-anti-gay-activists-caught-being-gay/joanne# Native94080 (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC) It won't the RIght Wingers would rather avoid the fact that he is a saelf hating gay man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.64.102 (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, not even one word about the scandal that caused his downfall?! So much for NPOV. 174.65.10.224 (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of information cited to campaign page.
Those sentences and sections under the issues heading which utilize the Campaign website as the sole citation are in violation of the NPOV, as a result of the citation. The information can be added once more if proper citations from verifiable third party sources are utilized. It is not possible to contend that a campaign website maintains neutrality in it's reporting of factual information, and therefore using it as the basis for a Wikipedia article for a public official seems to be suspect in it's motives.

Please do not revert the changes once they have been applied. Rather, rewrite the content to maintain a neutral point of view, and use reliable source material that can be verified in it's authenticity.

Alaclerk (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Following the reversion of my earlier changes, I will reverting to the version produced prior to what I suspect was an automatic reversion for suspected vandalism. These changes are not vandalism, and they merely represent a good faith alteration to maintain the NPOV of the article. Campaign literature of any kind cannot be factually verified without third party sources. There is no standard legal requirement that campaign websites in the United States maintain a neutral point of view, or even provide factual information.

Please address these issues on this discussion page prior to reverting future versions of the page.

Alaclerk (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Section heading have been added to the Issues area to allow for easier navigation and subsequently indexing. Alaclerk (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Information regarding the May 21, 2010 Supreme Court ruling on the gambling issue has been added with a link to the official court documents.Alaclerk (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As a follow up, I would like to remind any visitors or editors that any proposal suggesting that campaign literature maintains a NPOV is misguided. If a consensus of users agrees that campaign literature is a legitimate source, than by that same line of reasoning, a campaign opponents website would also be a legitimate source for information on the subject. Therefore, if the inclusion of official campaign web sites is indeed allowed, than I propose that opponent pages be granted the same status.Alaclerk (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for removing info. Yes, it was an error. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)