Talk:Carol Kent

Untitled

This Wikipedia article contained information that was misleading, imbalanced, unverified, and poorly sourced. The entry was created to sensationalize a partisan political narrative. As such, a vast majorituy of the content on this BLP has been removed, following the guidelines prescribed by the "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" entry.

The following is a categorization of the improper citations in the article.

Section: Endorsements

1. The list of endorsements is incomplete.

2. The statement “many believe that Carol Kent supports the criticized policies of the Obama administration” is problematic for multiple reasons: (A) There is no evidence sourcing her support for any of these programs cited by the person who created the document; (B) There is no balanced description of any of the Obama administration initiatives described in the page – they are all unduly negative; and (C) Claiming that her support “remains an extremely divisive issue to this day” is an unqualified and unsupported statement that is not backed-up by any secondary source.

Sections: Crime, Spending, Taxes, Chubbed Bills, Absenteeism

Almost every single link cited throughout these sections does not source any of the statements made in the Wikipedia journal. Several of the claims made about how Carol Kent voted are completely false. Many of the descriptions of legislation contained in the Wikipedia journal are in direct conflict with the descriptions of the legislation provided in the link.

• Citation 6 does not provide direct documentation of any missed votes while serving on the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee – it is simply a list of when the Committee met. Furthermore, there is no secondary source is provided to substantiate the claim.

• Citation 7 does not provide direct documentation of any vote; the description of the legislation in the Wikipedia article is in direct conflict with the description of the legislation found by searching the “bill analysis” for the bill on the link provided. Furthermore, there is no secondary source is provided to substantiate the claim.

• Citation 8 does not provide direct documentation to the claim that is made, and no secondary source is provided to substantiate the claim.

• Citation 9 does not provide direct documentation to the claim that is made, and no secondary source is provided to substantiate the claim.

• Citation 10 does not provide direct documentation of any vote; the description of the legislation in the Wikipedia article is in direct conflict with the description of the legislation found by searching the “bill analysis” for the bill on the link provided. Furthermore, there is no secondary source is provided to substantiate the claim.

• Citation 11 does not provide direct documentation of any missed vote, and no secondary source is provided to substantiate the claim. Moreover, the description of the legislation in the Wikipedia article is in direct conflict with the description of the legislation found by searching the “fiscal note” for the bill on the link provided.

• Citation 12 does not provide direct documentation to the claim that is made, and no secondary source is provided to substantiate the claim. Moreover, the description of the legislation in the Wikipedia article is in direct conflict with the description of the legislation found by searching the “fiscal note” for the bill on the link provided.

• Citation 13 does not provide direct documentation to the claim that is made, and no secondary source is provided to substantiate the claim. Moreover, the description of the legislation in the Wikipedia article is in direct conflict with the description of the legislation found by searching the “text” for the bill on the link provided.

• Citation 14 does not provide direct documentation to the claim that is made, and no secondary source is provided to substantiate the claim. Moreover, the description of the legislation in the Wikipedia article is an incomplete and biased assessment of the description of the legislation found by searching the “bill analysis” for the bill on the link provided.

• Citation 15 does not provide any documentation of the claim “Kent participated in Democrat delaying tactics” and no secondary source is provided to substantiate the claim.

• Citation 16 does not provide direct documentation to the claim that is made, and no secondary source is provided to substantiate the claim. However, upon further research, it was discovered that the claim made was false, and Kent did vote for the legislation.

• Citation 17 does not provide direct documentation to the claim that is made, and no secondary source is provided to substantiate the claim.

• Citation 18 does not provide direct documentation to the claim that is made, and no secondary source is provided to substantiate the claim.

• Citation 19 does not provide direct documentation to the claim that is made, and no secondary source is provided to substantiate the claim. However, upon further research it was discovered that the claim made was false, and Kent did vote for the legislation.

• Citation 20 does not provide direct documentation of any missed votes on the floor of the Texas House, and there is no secondary source is provided to substantiate the claim.

• Citation 21 does not provide direct documentation to the claim that is made, and no secondary source is provided to substantiate the claim.

• Citation 22 does not provide direct documentation to the claim that is made, and no secondary source is provided to substantiate the claim.