Talk:Troy King
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Troy King article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Troy King be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Top 10 Anti-Gay Activists Caught Being Gay
[edit]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.
[edit]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)
- Biography articles of living people
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Alabama articles
- WikiProject Alabama articles
- Wikipedia requested images of politicians and government-people
- Wikipedia requested images of people of Alabama