Talk:Karen Weldin Stewart

Untitled
This entry in its prior form borders on libelous. If you're going to post scandalous stuff about KWS, at least be ready to cite your sources. The article as re-edited by Schrandit is better but still has problems. That's why I tagged it as unencyclopedic - it has ad hominem (and unverified) statements like "long been peripherally involved", "Stewart's campaign was plagued by largely unanswered claims", and "with only a high-school diploma, a mere two years of community college, and little business experience". - Sensor (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, are you happy with the current version? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's now factual and takes out the dubious and uncited allegations. Thanks. - Sensor (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article was poor, but a lot of those allegations were citable and very valid. I intend on reintroducing as many of them as have evidence to back them up. - Schrandit (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Make sure you are using reliable sources - the previous sources were crap - remember we are not interested in "truth" at wikipedia, we are interested in verification. If you can not provide decent sources, it's not going in the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Credit card judgements
I have removed this material for the second time on the grounds that it is negative material about a living person and thus breaches WP:BLP policy. My reasoning is as follows; Wikipedia is not the place to mount criticisms of your most unfavourite politicians. There are plenty of more suitable venues for that. The article needs to remain balanced and factual.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  18:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The material is sourced to a blog. Blogs are only acceptable as sources in the rarest of circumstances and absolutely never in a BLP article.
 * 2) The material is not court documents as claimed in this edit summary, they are documents the blog claims are court documents. This may well be what they are but it is still not coming from a reliable source.
 * 3) The alleged court documents do not back up what is claimed in the edit: what the credit card purchases were for, when the issue emerged in the campaign.
 * 4) Even if the court documents were sourced, it would still only be a primary source. There is no reliable secondary source discussing this as a notable event, significant to the campaign or evidence of any wrongdoing.  It is not permitted to make your own synthesis from the primary sources, this is counted as original research.  Reliable secondary sources are needed which make these judgements.