Talk:Kari Lake/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021

Please remove unsustained political slander which clearly demonstrate a political bias. Thank you. Reggah1 (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: @Reggah1: Please be specific about which unsourced text you are referring to. —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Just because it has a source doesn’t mean it's credible and un bias. Just because a person endorsed her doesn’t mean she shares his views. This article is a political hack and speaks volumes to the writer. Reggah1 (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Reggah1, so you're not planning on making any specific points? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"I love this man. I am so honored to have his endorsement for my run for Governor of Arizona."[1]

"publicly thanking a Nazi sympathizer for his support"[2] soibangla (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Read my reply, it’s pretty specific. To add hearsay, doesn’t constitute creditable source. But let me spell it out: “ Lake has been endorsed by far-right conspiracy theorists such as Arizona congressman Paul Gosar, former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, and has appeared with a Nazi sympathizer and QAnon-linked activists at campaign events.[5]” though the article was about Kari Lane. Imagine if I link the current President with Nazi just because they like the President? Please keep Wikipedia honest and stick with facts relevant to the subject of the article not political slander. Thank you Reggah1 (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"Happy birthday to one of the greatest men to ever walk the halls of Congress" [3] soibangla (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Good job a sourcing, now how is he far right, and what is far right? Because from what I hear Joe Rogan is far right now. Reggah1 (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead

What do we know about Kari Lake? Well, she has tightly aligned herself with Trump as an election truther: she has said the election was stolen, and even after the "audit" found no fraud she says the election should be decertified, which is impossible. She is attacking "fake news" and her possible/likely opponent in the election[4]. It's a pretty serious matter to call for the imprisonment of a high government official without any basis whatsoever (can we expect "lock her up" chants at rallies?). Before she entered politics in June, little was known about her views, she was a prominent Phoenix news anchor, and such people are not inclined to share their political views lest they lose half their audience. Now that she's a candidate for a major office, she's made her views abundantly clear and these views are key to understanding who she is.

An IP editor has said the challenged content is "not written with an encyclopedic voice" without explaining how or making any changes, but simply removing the content altogether. The same IP said a "citation needed," but there was a citation. FMSky then asserted "trim passive-aggressive wording" to remove the content altogether rather than tweak the language. What does all that sound like? WP:IDONTLIKEIT? If an editor objects to the phrasing, then tweak it. Don't end it, fix it. That's what good faith editing is all about.

Finally, body follows lead. It is exceedingly difficult to plausibly argue this content doesn't belong in the lead. Without that content, the lead is unacceptably skeletal and gives the reader no sense of what the body elaborates on. soibangla (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be in the lead. Both because the lead should summarize the body and because the content is key to her political notability: she wouldn't be the leading Republican candidate if not for her incendiary rhetoric and Trump endorsement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Its mainly the wording. It has been told multiple times that its not encyclopedic writing, and that was also the first impression i immediately got when visiting this article (I dont even know Kari Lake and just stumbled upon the article when reverting edits of a known disruptive IP). So it would imo have to be rewritten or shortened. i proposed "During her campaign, she has made numerous false claims about the 2020 election. She has also called for imprisoning Arizona secretary of state Katie Hobbs.", which is fine imo. the way it currently is just sounds like editors have a personal agenda against her. FMSky (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly pertinent context that the election fraud claims are in relation to Trump's false claims of fraud and that the allegations of criminality against Hobbs are baseless. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

FMSky, please would you explain what you consider to be undue in the article, as you assert in the tag you added? soibangla (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

well i as well as numerous other editors have already said that the article is not written from a neutral perspecive. but since you refuse to delete or reword the text, i have at least added a notification now to warn readers. --FMSky (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you add the tag but won't initiate a discussion to justify it with some specificity, I am inclined to promptly remove it. I now have an increasing sense of WP:IDONTLIKEIT soibangla (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

You cant just copy-paste stuff off of CNN or similar sites into wikipedia articles, i thought that was common sense. FMSky (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing was copy-pasted. Wikipedia articles reflect content in reliable sources. CNN is a reliable source. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia guidelines. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Due to that baseless comment, I'm removing the tag. soibangla (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

You keep referring to "numerous other editors" but those editors are the same IP accounts who have been edit-warring to whitewash reliable content from this article for months. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Have to say FMSky isn't wrong. This article's lead sentence simply doesn't feel like it maintains Encyclopedic tone what so ever. Unfortunately its just one of many. Eruditess (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Source correction?

Editors: Source #3 does not support the words "numerous false claims" mentioned in the statement "During her campaign, she has made numerous false claims about the 2020 presidential election in which Trump was only the second Republican to lose Arizona since 1948.[3]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin-Consultant (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed soibangla (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Inapproriate reversion of endorsement information

This morning I attempted to add NPOV endorsement details to the Kari Lake page (last revision). Involves a single sentence with two acceptable sources. Users User:Snooganssnoogans and User:Soibangla have inappropriately reverted these changes, questioning the notability of raising Kari's nationally reported endorsements while having previously defending reports on her circumstantial proximity to utterly local controversial figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revprez (talk • contribs) 17:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Your edit asserts "a dossier compiled by Jann-Michael Greenburg," but he didn't compile it, his father did. And it's just not notable anyway. soibangla (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I would be more than willing to make the correction, though the matter is notable in that it was nationally reported. It is certainly as notable as the other nationally reported endorsements in the lead. Rev Prez (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Was it nationally reported because of the endorsements, or because Fox News and others misprepresented the episode? Note that the Fox News link you provided said Jann-Michael Greenburg "had access to" the Google drive without noting that the documents therein were actually compiled by his father. soibangla (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

As detailed in my last edit, the Fox News reference was replaced with a New Yorker article which details the same episode and endorsement information. The endorsement is notable in that it comes from five parents who were tracked in the dossier, which in turn is notable in that its existence led to the ouster of a school board president. This is at least as notable as controversial locals showing up for an event. Rev Prez (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see The New Yorker mentions those endorsements. And again, the documents weren't compiled by the guy, but simply saying he had access to the drive was sufficient to create a fake scandal of the school board president spying on parents. soibangla (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Then I'd be willing to note that Greenberg is "alleged" to have managed the dossier. As for the endorsements, if the Fox News article is insufficient for you then I'm willing to edit this page to reflect that Lake has been "taking photographs with CAN members." Rev Prez (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

This boils down to not-notable endorsements from non-notable people who are characterized as "victims" of a highly dubious "scandal." How many times have we seen this ploy before? soibangla (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

On this page? "a [unnamed and also local] Nazi sympathizer and QAnon-linked activists at campaign events." CAN's endorsement of Kari Lake is certainly notable as it concerns Arizona politics. Nobody's asking you to endorse a particular take on actual events. Rev Prez (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't endorsements of her campaign be relevant at 2022 Arizona gubernatorial election rather than here? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

So shall we remove the endorsements already listed in the lead? Rev Prez (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we should. Trump, Flynn, and the pillow guy are surely more important "nationally" than parents from Scottsdale though. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd note that they're also more important than "a [unnamed and also local] Nazi sympathizer and QAnon-linked activists at campaign events," yet these facts are apparently sufficiently salient to keep in the lead. That said, there's merit to moving this information to the 2022 Arizona gubernatorial election page, or even into an endorsements section on this page. Or perhaps both. Rev Prez (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I would oppose moving/removing that solidly-sourced content that is central to who she is. soibangla (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

CAN's endorsement is central to Kari Lake's campaign. She has consistently hammered on the Scottsdale matter. Rev Prez (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Your edit said Lake was endorsed by five parents. Are they "CAN?" Of course a politician hammers on a dubious matter she wants to inflate as a major issue, that doesn't make it notable. soibangla (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Since you object to the use of Fox news as a citation, we can reword to reflect Kari Lake's appearance with SUSD CAN members as noted in the New Yorker article. That's the compromise proposed above. Rev Prez (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

CAN was formed five months ago and its profile appears to be limited to a private Facebook group. Who are they? What could they be talking about in there? soibangla (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

So no more notable than Greyson Arnold who isn't even named in this article--just obliquely referred to as a Nazi sympathizer. What's the problem? Shall we remove that bit as well? Rev Prez (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The source names him and notes Lake publicly thanking a Nazi sympathizer for his support.[5] soibangla (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

CAN is named in the New Yorker article and a perfunctory "[i]t was a pleasure to meet you, too"[6] is not "publicly thanking a Nazi sympathizer for his support." It is, however, a point of view. And not a neutral one. Rev Prez (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

She did publicly thank him and even after it was published in major media (and his background was reported in another CNN story[7]) she still has not renounced him or retracted her thanks, and reliable sources have reported it accurately rather than it being a POV. soibangla (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

No Lake did not publicly thank Gerry Arnold for his support. She replied to a photo of them together with "[i]t was a pleasure to meet you, too."[8] It is inappropriate to substitute your point of view or someone else's in representing the facts of the matter. In any event, Kari Lake and CAN's support for one another is just as notable as a chance meeting with a local man of little consequence. Rev Prez (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not my POV and I recommend you cease asserting it is. A reliable source reported "including publicly thanking a Nazi sympathizer for his support" and here's the exchange.[9] soibangla (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It is either your POV or Steck and Kaczynski. You can either describe it as their opinion or actually report the facts accurately. "It was a pleasure to meet you, too" contains neither an expression of thanks or reference to support. It is a perfunctory response to making someone's acquaintance. Of course that has nothing to do with anything at the moment. You continue to insist that it is notable that Kari Lake was briefly introduced to a controversial figure in local Arizona politics while also insisting that Wray and CAN, who have been featured in multiple unimpeachable articles [10][11][12][13] doesn't fit the bill. Rev Prez (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

A reliable source reported this, and it's not that she just by accident thanked one guy out of the thousands who tweet to her, it's also that she has since not renounced him. And remember, this all started because you added that she had been endorsed by five moms, not an organization of note. soibangla (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

No reliable source reported Kari Lake publicly thanking a Nazi for his support. The CNN article[14] clearly states that Lake simply expressed pleasure at making Greyson Arnold's acquaintance and supplies a link to the relevant tweet. [15] Again, your misrepresentation of the facts is irrelevant. At the moment no one is demanding you change the passage. However, I do insist that if dubious associations with Nazis and QANon are permitted in the lead then Kari's clearly documented, ongoing and mutual association with CAN--in unimpeachable sources--also be represented and with the same priority as the calumny you insist on retaining. Rev Prez (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Revprez: your misrepresentation of the facts is a false personal attack and I recommend you strike it. soibangla (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It's no personal attack. It's a fact. You claimed Kari Lake has publicly thanked a Nazi for his support. I've demonstrated that such a claim is a misrepresentation. Proceed as you will. Rev Prez (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I am simply reciting what a reliable source reported, whereas you insist you know better and falsely accuse me of POV and misrepresentation. Five moms. HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I am simply noting a discrepancy between Kari Lake's reported remarks and your description of them. Such a discrepancy is commonly referred to as a misrepresentation. So are we in agreement to strike all the non-notable material from the lead? Rev Prez (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I have accurately represented a reliable source, you have not, instead you conduct original research and go low with personal attacks. We are not in agreement on anything. soibangla (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I have not conducted any original research; I've supplied references for all my claims and proposed multiple compromises. Falsely accusing me of ad hominem constitutes ad hominem itself. As we seem to be at an impasse, I'll research further steps for dispute resolution and get back to you later this week. Reckon you'll do the same, so I'll keep an eye on this page if you don't mind. Rev Prez (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Clearly candidates meet with hundreds or thousands of people and are polite to them - as noted by President Biden’s recent response to the unfortunate trolling of his public Christmas chat by some “Let’s go Brandon” jerk. Hunting down every fringe person who manages to score a photo op and a “nice to meet” from a politician and making them responsible for having done a full background on these folks is ridiculous. Asserting that it is important is clearly a loaded political agenda and not an appropriate piece of useful information for an encyclopedia. Gautry1 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. If such encounters are notable to remark upon here, I'm not sure why Kari Lake's planned and executed events with actual organizations like CAN do not meet soibangla's standards. Either we should remove the incendiary references to Nazi sympathizers and QANon activists or we should permit additional information regarding Kari Lake's associations and endorsements. Rev Prez (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with that endorsement being in the body. CAN appears to be a small, obscure and opaque group with an unclear agenda, whereas everyone knows about Nazis and QAnon. soibangla (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Then all the endorsements should move into the body. At the very least the bit that doesn't even name Greyson Arnold and Ethan Schmidt-Crockett. Rev Prez (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to name Arnold in the lead. It is important to mention in the lead the controversial figures she associates with. But thanks for mentioning her ardent supporter Ethan Schmidt whom she has also not renounced.[16][17] soibangla (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

If Arnold and Schmidt-Crockett aren't notable enough to mention in the lead, then we can remove that passage to a future endorsement section of the article. Otherwise, we should mention the endorsements of the even more notable CAN mothers. Rev Prez (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Schmidt is not mentioned in the lead, but Arnold is because he's a Nazi-sympathizer whom Lake has thanked and not denounced since. This is far more significant than five moms endorsing her in a Fox News story, and not even this obscure CAN group that arose five months ago. soibangla (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Neither Schmidt nor Arnold are mentioned in the lead. I'm not sure why it's notable that Lake hasn't denounced inconsequential figures with whom she does not associate. Lake does associate with CAN, after all, and they have mutually endorsed one another. So either Lake's association with CAN gets a mention in the same breath as her brief encounter with controversial nobodies or we can remove all of them under a reasonable notion of notability. Rev Prez (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Link to CAN, after all, and they have mutually endorsed one another as opposed to...five moms? soibangla (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You can find SUSD CAN here. Amanda Wray is the founder[18] and she has endorsed Kari Lake with four other mothers[19]. However, since the proposal is only to reference CAN and Lake's reported association with one another[20], there is no need to reference the endorsement. Rev Prez (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It is a private group and neither endorse nor Kari appears on that page. Five moms! soibangla (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Five moms who helped oust a school board president and made national news doing so. Beats fretting over some guy on the Internet who manages to snag a photograph. In any event, I suppose we're at an impasse. Let's proceed to the next stage in resolving our dispute. Rev Prez (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

She thanked him for his support and after it was reported by major media she didn't renounce him but instead criticized "left and the Marxist media like CNN" for reporting it, to which Arnold replied "Thank you Kari Lake for standing with Patriots against the fake news slander."[21] soibangla (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Lake did not thank Arnold for his support. She replied "[i]t was a pleasure to meet you, too."[22] Rev Prez (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Admins, please remove a few judgmental and opinionated phrases

Here the judgmental and opinionated fragments I suggest to be removed by admins as they don't belong in a neutral article:

From the Intro section:

• "baseless and"
• "far-right conspiracy theorists such as"

From the whole article:

• false
• falsely

I checked that just be removing those fragments the remaining sentences are still understandable and won't change their statements.

Isenberg (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done From what I can tell, these statements seem in line with referenced information. In what way do these violate WP:NPOV? Spencer^T•C 03:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

They violate WP:NPOV as those adjectives are used in a way here to judge and add writer's opinion. The statements themselves would still be able stand without those adjectives. Or wouldn't they? In that case the statements would be weak anyway. The sentence structure in the career section to make it read like she also resigned from the candidacy is unclear and just needs some adjustment to clarify that she is still a candidate for governor. Why does it need to be that diffuse there? It doesn't matter about the topic of this article or the person it is about, that language is judging and doesn't belong into an encyclopedia. Political discussions need to be made outside of wikipedia. Isenberg (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Isenberg My apologies, I misunderstood that you were asking for the career section changes to be a replacement. Upon further consideration, I removed the requested material in the intro section. I'll be honest, I think that having "false"/"falsely" is important context for readers who are not familiar with the election, but I will un-mark the request as "read" for another admin to give it a look. Spencer^T•C 05:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Spencer Sorry, I wrote my suggestion indeed not very clear. In the career section I meant a replacement and have done that now myself. It's the sentence starting with "In a video announcing her resignation and candidacy for governor" which I now replaced with "In a video stating her resignation from TV and announcing her candidacy for governor". Isenberg (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Those are accurate and sourced. WP:TRUTH and WP:YESPOV EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Appeared with Nazi-sympathizer claim

Soibangla, this doesn't really address my concerns [23]. First, as an experienced editor I'm sure you are aware that the lead follows the body. Yes, that is now somewhat true but the lead is meant to be a summary of the most important points in the body. This single CNN article doesn't rise to that standard and thus shouldn't be in the lead. The claims in the CNN "KFILE" article don't suggest she was aware of the controversial views of the people in question nor that she supports any of those views. This looks strongly like guilt by association rather than something that speaks to her policy proposals etc. Even your edit supports the notion that Lake may not have been aware of who these people were and critically does not support that she embraces or is even sympathetic with their most controversial aspects. This comes across as a guilt by association CNN article. I oppose to the inclusion. Springee (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Well said. Torito468 (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Political Opinionation

This page is full of all kinds of political bias, opinionation, and illegitimate labeling resulting from one's own self-absorbed perception. Someone needs to fix this, Wikipedia is about facts and education, not political superiority and slandering. They say this page is locked to prevent vandalism, it's already been vandalised... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:11:0:0:0:77 (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

COMPLETELY AGREE!!! Torito468 (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Please provide some specific sourced examples of how the article can be improved. soibangla (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Well yes, this talk page is full of all kinds of political bias, opinionation, and illegitimate labeling resulting from one's own self-absorbed perception from people making bogus complaints about the accurate article.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022

Hi, this page is really biased but it's also poorly written. Why did the writer tell us that Kari Lake is a Republican candidate for AZ governor, and she's been endorsed by Trump, and then repeat it. 2601:283:4A01:5480:30B7:B383:5CBC:3A06 (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: We're not going to address vague claims of bias, but you were right that it was poor writing that the second paragraph of the lead mentioned Trump endorsing her twice. I took one of them out. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Endorsements in Lead

It is not normal on Wikipedia articles to list endorsements in someones campaign in the lead of personal article. I'm specifically referring to the following sentence:

"Lake has been endorsed by former president Donald Trump, Arizona congressman Paul Gosar, former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell."

An endorsement from President Trump is usually stated when applicable, but Gosar, Flynn, and Lindell is highly unusual as the common reader would not know who one or all of these people are.

I make a recommendation to remove listing Gosar, Flynn, and Lindell in the lead and only mention Trump. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Potentially defamatory content in the Personal Life section

Administrator Muboshgu has reverted to content that is potentially defamatory. Rick Stevens' allegations are presented as fact rather than allegations. Additionally, the section goes beyond Stevens' sourced claims and asserts that Steven presented photographic evidence of performing at Kari Lake's home and around Lake's children. None of the six photos Stevens presented is annotated as such. Additionally, Lake's sourced responses from this point onward should be included as well, starting with her assertion that Stevens' production is "full of defamatory lies and Kari is pursuing legal action and anyone that prints those lies should be prepared for a legal fight as well." Rev Prez (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

"Potentially defamatory"? Be careful with the language that you're using. Wikipedia has no tolerance for legal threats. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources in our coverage. I see that we have been using one citation from Vice, which WP:RSP shows some people are iffy about, so I can swap it for the undeniably RS Arizona Republic. Rick Stevens has provided the receipts, and RS reflect this. Per the Arizona Republic, In multiple statements, the campaign appeared to draw a distinction between a man dressed as a woman serving as an "impersonator" and a drag show. So, they're playing semantics. The article then says Ross Trumble, Lake's spokesman, said Lake's daughter had attended a baby shower where Stevens "showed up as a Marilyn Monroe impersonator." Stevens said he performed for the private gathering that day. So they are not denying that Lake's daughter was at this drag performance, they're just trying to call it by another name. Further, I added a sentence with Lake's "legal action", a cease and desist letter, which provides from her side. I'll add her line on "full of defamatory lies". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Muboshgu, from Wikipedia's legal threat policy: "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." As the Lake campaign has taken action on this matter, clearly a discussion on whether the content is potentially defamatory is warranted. Moreover, the passage as currently written goes beyond The Arizona Republic's reporting and asserts as fact matters in dispute. Specifically "Stevens published photos and screenshots documenting...Stevens performing at Lake's home and around Lake's children at Lake's invitation." None of the articles on this matter make any such claim. Finally, '[t]he Lake campaign specifically objects to Stevens' statements that Lake took her minor daughter to a 'drag show,' that Lake invited Stevens to her home to perform a drag show." Again, I'd request that the passage be revised to reflect that 1) Stevens is making allegations and 2) the specific claims Stevens' makes that Lake refutes. Rev Prez (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Wordsmithing is fine. Including that Stevens saying that he and Lake used to be friends is not in any way defamatory. Performing at Lake's home is his claim and doesn't appear to be confirmed, so how's this? Both sides, though, confirm through their statements that Lake's then- 9-or-10-year-old daughter was present at a show where Stevens was in drag as Marilyn Monroe. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Revprez, "Rick Stevens' allegations are presented as fact rather than allegations"--I don't even see any real allegations. The paragraph is very short, factual, to the point--and we are not in a courtroom here where every single factoid has to be presented. If Lake actually starts legal action, no doubt the Wikipedia article will reflect that. In the meantime, kindly stop with the threats, and please respond to the notice I'm going to put on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Drmies. I have no relationship with Kari Lake or her campaign whatsoever--personal or professional. Stevens allegations listed in the passage include 1) Lake and Stevens have been "friends for years," 2) Stevens "perform[ed] at Lake's home and around Lake's children at Lake's invitation." In the context of just the article, at the very least 2) is disputed. Rev Prez (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Political (non)-edit again

Funny to see that only the DNC candidate is mentioned, but the (Trump-endorsed) GOP one is left out. 77.2.62.215 (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I am unclear as to which section of the article you have an issue with. If you are simply trying to insinuate a vague bias, then we have nothing more to discuss. If you want to suggest a specific improvement to make the article better, I’d be happy to discuss it here. Tyrone (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not a fair write up

This is so politically slanted and disrespectful to this individual. Should not be allowed. 2600:1005:B05C:CBC5:4534:B46B:7729:6A08 (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Example of article being slanted: In "...she shared false and unverified information on social media, prompting criticism...", the reference does not indicate that the shared information is false. "Unverified" does not equal "false". 4.7.25.147 (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The source says "debunked and unverified information." Debunk: to expose the sham or falseness of.[24] soibangla (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

We should always be careful about "debunked" claims since it's not always clear that the sources that claim something is debunked are correct. It's better to phrase things in a way that makes the claim of "debunked" attributed vs in Wiki-voice. This incidentally is a problem in many articles. Springee (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

If we're talking about election fraud lies, let's make sure the sources we use are firm in calling them lies. It is important that we make clear that these election lies are lies. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

OP needs to see WP:UNDUE policy and WP:TRUTH. We have no interest in balancing POV for truth and lies, especially when it is reliably sourced consistently. Tyrone (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Please change

"Kari Ann Lake (born August 23, 1969) is an American politician and former television news journalist."

Please change "television news journalist" to 'television news personality', 'television news reader' or 'television news anchor'.

She is a news reader and colour commenter who largely doesn't write her own stuff, but rather reads off pre-edited Associated Press articles from a teleprompter, and then ad libs her commentary and opinions as she goes.

To call her a journalist or reporter is hugely inaccurate, and an insult to all those real journalists and stringers who chase the scoop, write and report the news. 71.223.130.253 (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any RS to support this change? Thanks. Tyrone (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2022

Her full name is Kari Vesi Lake. 2402:D000:811C:8CDB:64BC:27A7:2948:C92A (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"False"

Please don't use the word "false" in your articles relating to this article. I is the "opinion" of the reader. 68.4.197.121 (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

This article or other articles uses the word "false" because independent reliable sources use the word "false". Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state. If you disagree with what the sources say, you will need to take that up with them. The sources are provided to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves in determining what to believe. You are still free to believe what you wish. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 misinformation

The article claims that Kari Lake shared COVID-19 misinformation on Twitter and Facebook. However, while the video in question was labeled as misinformation back in 2020 by several organizations, the information within the video has been found to be credible and consistent with the latest science.

From another article on the controversy:

In the video, Erickson and Massihi used results of COVID-19 tests in the Bakersfield area, where they own an urgent care center, to claim that the novel coronavirus is similar to the flu in its spread, and that isolation may in fact weaken the immune system.

Today, it is conventionally understood that COVID-19 spread occurs mainly via aerosol transmission, which is also "an important mode of influenza A virus spread." It should also be inarguable that isolation is known to weaken the immune system.

For these reasons, this language should be removed from the Kari Lake article. 68.52.161.215 (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOR - You need an article that says covid lockdowns weakened out immune systems and that Lake was not wrong. You cannot make that analysis yourself EvergreenFir (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/05/all-social-distancing-weakening-our-immune-systems

There you go. 97.120.163.137 (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's helpful. We’ve been hearing this theory too, and we can assure you that this is NOT the way your immune system works. Did you even read this before you dropped the link? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Covid misinformation

Calling her statements "COVID misinformation" is bias and dismissive of opposing viewpoints. State clearly what was said and leave judgement to the reader. 2600:8805:4802:DD00:BCCF:F4DB:7056:4D9A (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

We have, Kari_Lake#COVID-19. Calling it "misinformation" is accurate, not "bias". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Correction - not a politician

She has not won an election or served in political office therefore she is not yet a politician and shouldn’t be labeled as such. 73.253.124.60 (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

She has stood for election in a party primary, which she won. She is a politician. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could argue with a straight face that the Republican (or Democratic) nominee for governor of any state isn't a "politician". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2022

Please correct the article that state Ms. Lake spread Covid-19 misinformation. Accusing her of this is misinformation. Her comments have been proven true by the misinformation spread by Anthony Fauci and CDC regarding masks and other forms of treatment for the Covid virus. Thank you. 204.111.121.6 (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: She definitely spread misinformation.[25][26] You're spreading misinformation too. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Kari Lake article

Very politically motivated. Lacks credibility to the point that it makes Wikipedia look bad. 2600:1013:B017:1BD8:B59B:80EA:94D9:4FDD (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is very biased in the way it is written. It is quite obvious. Many accusations with few sources. 2601:681:B00:1BF0:7A7B:2CDF:98E9:E648 (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

As of right now, this article cites 71 unique references. Which "accusations" aren't supported? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2022

A brand new Time Magazine article says Lake was born in Rock Island, Illinois. 107.185.110.159 (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Verified via Apple News, so I don't have a direct link to the Time site. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2022

The claims of Covid information Kari shared has been debunked and should removed as the information is now accurate as shelter in place was not needed during that timeframe as previously advised. Again, please reference CDC, NHS and other organizations. 2604:2D80:680D:DB00:B473:1051:A07A:8BDA (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2022 (2)

Please make sure to mention Kari Lake is of mixed ethnicity in her background. It feels like it’s being portrayed that she is a white woman on purpose and that is racist. 2600:100E:B068:30FB:4179:E4BC:BCE7:7200 (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Your "feeling" does not appear to be grounded in reality. The article does not say she's white. If you have additional information about her background that is relevant, please provide it. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Title

If someone can fix that lowercase L in the title that would be great I had to make it from a redirect--Wikideas1 (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/BuckeyePolitic1/status/1443718829616549891

Wikipedia loses a lot of credibility and damages its reputation when it prints partisan nonsense as highlighted on this viral tweet. Not sure if enough editors on here can see how stupidly unencyclopedic this obviously is, but here's hoping there are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:148:1F02:7000:94CD:CB40:5425:E818 (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about and why did you put it in the wrong place? Jibal (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Posting of bio politically slanted

My concern is the obvious political slant describing candidates’ biographies. How about taking a neutral slant when publishing information about people. Very disappointing.

Case in point is Editor Muboshgu’s publication regarding Kari Lake. This person‘s editing privileges should be revoked. By the way, I do not know Ms. Lake but come to Wikipedia for unbiased information. I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for years but now feel compelled to reconsider future support. 66.243.209.226 (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have specific concerns? A general complaint about bias is unhelpful for identifying what may need to be changed. clpo13_(talk) 17:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It appears that everyone is in agreement that this article is extremely biased. Wikipedia??? What day you… demand Edit please. Torito468 (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It is obviously not true that everyone is in agreement that this article is extremely biased. (OTOH, it is quite obvious that the people complaining about it are extremely biased and are not exercising good faith). -- Jibal (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022

This is an opinion piece at best. Cheating has been found in the 2020 election. Gab is a free speech social media platform, unlike Twitter or facebook. Please stop allowing options to be posted as fact as that is false and misleading information. 2600:8803:590A:EC00:1087:ECA4:2978:8763 (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing in the above specifies a specific change to be made to the article, nor a reliable source that supports the change. —C.Fred (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

she has made false claims -  "false" is sibjective - should be " she has made  claims"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brbnews (talk • contribs) 05:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC) 

That's not how it works. Reliable sources say they are false. If someone claims that 1+1 = 3 or that the moon is made out of green cheese, it is not "sibjective (sic)" to say those claims are false. Jibal (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2022

This article should not show political (liberal) bias by using the term "false" in relation to claims of election irregularities, of which there were many, and for effectiveness claim of therapeutic drugs used to treat Covid. The drugs mentioned have been shown to be effective in recent clinical studies. 104.159.223.226 (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Read above sections. Cannolis (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Completely Agree! Torito468 (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The political bias is in the request, not the article. -- Jibal (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Bias & Opinionated

This article is very biased in claiming Lake’s falsehoods. I read this site to get facts about a certain individual, person, or object. NOT to read self feelings about a certain something or someone. 71.121.216.110 (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a fact that she's spread falsehoods. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrong, it's been claimed by some left-wing news outlets whose neutrality is severely questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.187.90 (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The only sources we use are reliable ones, per WP:RSP. That they don't conform to your skewed world view is your problem, not ours. Newsmax, RSBN, and OANN are lying to you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The complainant's neutrality is severely questionable. Jibal (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Kari Lake

Delete the word false from Kari Lake’s allegations that the 2020 election was fraudulent. Until we learn more, we can’t say they are true or false. Why does Wikipedia continually allow its writers to apply a double standard to the way Republicans are negatively treated. 96.47.146.23 (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. Cannolis (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

If Republicans didn't lie about the 2020 election then articles wouldn't say that they do, but since they do lie, the articles say so. And we definitely can say that they are lies, because we have learned plenty and we know that they are. Jibal (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep this discussion here as an example of why the article absolutely needs to avoid conspiratorial thought. Tyrone (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Children

Kari Lake has been married to her husband for 24 years; they have two children. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/08/06/who-kari-lake-what-know-arizona-governor-nominee/10249610002/ 97.124.230.28 (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2021

Stating that GAB is a platform for white supremacists is spurious. As a free speech platform of course there will be extremists of all sorts but that in no way indemnifies the platform or any single user. 83.8.44.246 (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The article does not assert Gab is for white supremacists, merely that it has white supremacists. While the source used in that particular statement is questionable, other reliable sources report independent of this article's subject that Gab has a base of white supremacists and/or extremists. 2 examples include: [27][28]. Both of these sources have been discussed by the community and deemed to be reliable per WP:RSP. Thus, I do not feel comfortable performing this request. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

At least be consistent, if you say one social media has extremist, you should also put that word on any platform that has user ability to post. 2600:100E:BE1A:16E0:8FA3:17A2:37F2:8DB4 (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Consistent? That would destroy their narrative. Eegorr (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Eegorr: what narrative would that be? clpo13_(talk) 03:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Bothers me since this whole section continues the hiding of her Spanish heritage. Lake might be her name, but just try to look deeper into her roots & find the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.157.220.138 (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Who is "they"? Wikipedia's "narrative" is determined by reliable sources. Jibal (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Whom is they indeed??? Do not see "they" mentioned, please quote what you are referring to! 159.118.226.210 (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and they say that Gab is a white supremacist site. Jibal (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

where'd the lead go?

for quite some time the lead had one or two paragraphs about Lake's political positions, reflecting extensive body coverage

did I miss a discussion that determined it should be reduced to such a primitive form? just wonderin' soibangla (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It appears the lead was trimmed down by Vir4030 in early August [29]. The reduction looks reasonable as it removed two sentences while adding the third to the first paragraph. Springee (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Eruditess (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2022

Tons of the information throughout this page are false and use false/misinformation links as citations. This has to stop on Wikipedia. Someone within this organization is putting false information in the article and someone here at wikipedia does not care. You are doing nothing more than making wikipedia a safe have for falsehoods. Good luck with this bullshit. Twbranch (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Incorrectly misleading and knowing you are doing it is legally a cause for suing the owners/authors of this page. Twbranch (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, please review WP:NLT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve blocked them. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Political Bias

Use of the Term “Far-Right” is an opinion held by the editor that does not have a true, agreed upon definition. It has been used in this context to create a negative connotation to anyone searching for information about Kari Lake. 2600:1012:B1A2:37C0:29F9:C689:82ED:342 (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. "Far-right" is reliably sourced. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

“right wing”

Kari Lake is not a “right wing” politician, she is a Conservative Republican politician.

Can we please stop with the false descriptions of any politician who isn’t a Democrat? 2603:7000:483E:14B3:4D57:3CF0:D8C7:4BEB (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources actually call her "far right-wing". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Kari Lake isn't a right wing politician. She is a right wing conspiracy theorist. This needs to be included in the article. 2402:D000:811C:9771:3115:C97D:4BD:E03A (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Politician?

@25stargeneral: If she's never held a political office, she's a perennial political candidate rather than a politician. diff ––FormalDude (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

How is she a perennial candidate when this is her first run for office? That makes no sense. And from our own article, "A politician is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking an elected office in government." 25stargeneral (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought she had run for office before. But she also has not had any activity in politics outside of this candidacy, which makes her a political candidate (which is what I changed the text to before you reverted). ––FormalDude (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Running for office makes someone a politician. Please read politician or consult a dictionary. 25stargeneral (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps technically, but any fool can run for office. "Political candidate" is much more accurate. I'm guessing we'll have to wait for input from other editors though as it doesn't sound like there'll be any convincing you. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with user:25stargeneral. In addition to their arguments, see for example https://news.yahoo.com/is-arizonas-kari-lake-the-most-dangerous-politician-in-america-090045758.html

it doesn't sound like there'll be any convincing you You know better than to do this. Jibal (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you're on about. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

bias political alignment

What's good for the guys is this for the gander. If you going to reference any persons political alignment, then do it for everyone, Especially politicians. Why has no one posted then Oboma, Clinton, Sanders, AOC, Biden, Pelosi, Tlaib, Omar, Pressley etc etc. Last leftist positions? 24.78.92.35 (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

1. WP:OTHERSTUFF, but 2. because of a lack of credible reliable sources that call them leftists, and 3. because Wikipedia should take a global perspective and look at the entire political spectrum and not the microcosm of the right where both major American political parties dwell. —C.Fred (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Except "reliable sources" are almost always left-leaning, and left-leaning sources typically hyperbolize political stances due to using their own political lens, rather than comparing Lake's (or whomever's) stances to say, the politics of other first-world countries in Europe. You know Wikipedia is biased when Media Matters is considered reliable, and The Daily Wire is considered as a proprietor of false and misleading information due to their bias (how ironic). Also, "OTHERSTUFF" is not whataboutism, but simply just wanting to have a consistent standard across the board to help improve bipartisanship. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Media Matters doesn't lie. (They're only called "marginally reliable" though.) Daily Wire does lie. Reliability is about accuracy in sourcing, not bias. Left-leaning sources tend to be more accurate than right-leaning sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Being a reliable source =/= being the poster child for political neutrality. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 01:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

To the extreme right-wingers, mainstream media are "leftist". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Television figure, bandwagon hanger on, not a politician 107.127.60.33 (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Anyone who asks for someone's vote is a politician. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Perhaps we need to add "politician" to the lead of Kanye West then? ––FormalDude (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That is a different story, for Talk:Kanye West. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

How is it different? Anyone who asks for someone's vote is a politician. Or is that not the case? ––FormalDude (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Which ballot(s) is Kanye on this year? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

None. He received 60,000 votes in the 2020 presidential election. According to Muboshgu he is a politician even if he had received zero votes, simply because he ran. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The term "former politician" might work for him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2022

Change Lake had been a leading proponent of the false claim to Lake had been a leading proponent of the claim MZ Minhahar (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done because the claims ARE false. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 01:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2022

The word "former" in the first sentence in not true. The election is not over and has only been declared by the media not the State of Arizona. There is a high probability there will be a recount of the ballots still. Additionally, the word "former" gives the assumption that Ms. Lake will never run in an American election ever again.

Thank you for allowing me to share this information. 669598C (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done The election is over, barring a major surprise. However, I agree that the word "former" is inappropriate, especially as she is not a "former American" as the lead read. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

That "former" bit was added by an editor named FormalDude,[30] definitely getting ahead of things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2022 (2)

GabrielSings (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

To say false claims about the election is possibly true but also possibly false. So, to say she made claims that the election was improperly conducted or rigged is more accurate.

 Not done: No, the claims are false. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Birthday

Her real birthday is on August 23rd 1969, not September 30th, 1969, according to her official Twitter account, @KariLake. 2603:7000:7700:67D:B450:5AF:8CF4:B391 (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Got a link for a tweet from her account that verifies her birthday? – Archer1234 (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that the ref that cited world-wire.com as the source for "September 30, 1969" is not reliable. See the discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard.

Note, too that, per WP:BLPPRIVACY, we are not to use birth dates unless they have been "widely published by reliable sources". So the burden is on any and all editors to satisfy that policy requirement before adding a birthdate. However, if Kari Lake publishes the date from an official website for her or a verified social media account, then it likely could be used per WP:ABOUTSELF without requiring that it be "widely published by reliable sources". – Archer1234 (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

References

References

Song dispute

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2022/11/19/tom-petty-estate-tells-kari-lake-stop-using-song/10737087002/

https://news.yahoo.com/tom-petty-estate-demands-failed-132805571.html

There are now articles saying that Kari Lake got in a dispute with Tom Petty over a song.2601:640:C682:8870:8B0:2A2C:6633:427E (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Politicians routinely clash with the artists of songs chosen to play at campaign rallies and such, this isn't really newsworthy. ValarianB (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Considering Tom died five years ago, I doubt she was in a dispute with him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022

Change "politician" to "candidate for governor of Arizona in 2022" 2603:8080:D300:5800:59C5:39A8:A7F8:45AB (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See (and participate in) the above "Request for Comment" – Muboshgu (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

In the page about Kari Lake the GOP candidate for Governor of Arizona your article states she lost the election, the state's election laws require a hand recount because the race was so close, but yet you are reporting she lost already, really undermines your credibility, it doesn't matter which candidate you prefer if you are truly a source of truth then you should omit this statement until a winner is officially declared Frankthetank77 (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done We follow news coverage. The Associated Press has called this race, which routinely happens well before elections are certified. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, automatic recounts in Arizona are if <0.5% margin. As of right now, Hobbs leads by 0.6%, so outside of a mandatory recount. Frankthetank, we won't let your preference of one candidate over another impact our neutral coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe this edit request was correct; I mistakenly introduced this error, but thankfully it was rectified by the attentive User:Starship.paint in this diff. The current wording is fully appropriate. DFlhb (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The credibility of Wikipedia, which is a consensus-based collective containing people all across the political spectrum, is just fine. It is governed by policies, and those policies are why the article says what it does. Note that numerous other articles state winners of races that have not yet been officially certified but that have been declared by reliable media sources. If you care about truth regardless of what candidate you prefer, then if you're going to complain about this article you should also complain about the Ron DeSantis article that says that he "was reelected in a landslide victory". But neither complain is valid. Jibal (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

There are endless credibility issues about Wikipedia, which is one reason why it is not considered a reliable source within itself. Wikipedia is essentially an "information aggregator", and is always subject to change as new information comes to light. It's my usual go-to for information, and if something doesn't ring true and is unsourced, it can be challenged. In this case, the sources have called the election. If they change their minds, or if the final count or a recount flips the result, Wikipedia will reflect that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, I'm reminded of the 2020 presidential election, in which Fox News called Arizona for Biden, and caused an uproar. But subsequent audits showed that they were right. Whether they were smart or it was just dumb luck, who knows - but they called it correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 20:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Endwise's revert

What do you think "champion of the far-right" means, Endwise? Or did you miss that quote from the source? ––FormalDude (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the addition of the descriptor, but I'd argue there needs to be a few more sources added for a label of this type - though there is an abundance of RSPs describing her as being on the far-right that can be used, e.g. . ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this is more along the lines of what we should be trying to do. I'll note that the WaPo and Hareetz sources in that list don't appear to describe/label her that way, but the rest seem okay at a glance. Endwise (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The source said she had become a champion of the far right. We should only use labels for people that reliable sources widely and consistently use for those people -- in this case, that means looking if sources generally say that she is far-right. Some of the sources provided by ser! above are a better shot at that. Also, as a side comment on process, I don't think that making the same edit 4 times in a few hours is the way we should be doing things. Endwise (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

As a rule we should avoid having BLP's that start with X is a far-right... That she is described as far right or is a champion for the far right can be an attributed claim in the lead but the problem is far-right is not a well defined term and often is applied haphazardly by news sources that may not agree with her stances. Also, there is far-right (and far-left) with in the norms of a political party and then there is far-right/left like Mussolini and Castro. To reiterate the concern regarding definitions, it's not always clear why someone is called far-right and some aspects that may not apply or even may directly conflict with a given candidate. Sadly, "far-right" is often applied by a polarized media as a form of scarlet letter or "warning to dismiss" rather than a serious analysis of a person's political positions. Also, since key word searches can make it easy to find "far-right"+ "Kari Lake" we would really need to show that this label is widely used among a broad range of sources (not just left leaning sources) to apply it in Wiki voice. Else, we should use it as an attributed claim. Springee (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to correct the media nor to pander to audiences who don't understand simple political terms. If it's reported by reliable sources, it should be reported by Wikipedia, bar extraordinary circumstances (which clearly do not exist in this case). ––FormalDude (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Same old song and dance. Sources do not directly call her far-right so neither should we. A recent archived Trump talk page section has a good lengthy discussion re this Anon0098 (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Ser has provided six sources above that directly call her far-right... ––FormalDude (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Endwise: Opposing a change when you don't actually have a substantive objection to the proposed change and when you know your argument has been easily refuted is textbook WP:STONEWALLING. Please self-revert. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  I do have a substantive objection, and I have expressed that objection multiple times now. We should introduce/label subjects the same way that reliable sources do. That means, in this case, we should only start the first sentence of this article with the label "far-right" if that is how reliable sources widely and consistently introduce/label her. There are possibly some, though very few, politicians for whom this is actually true. Most of the time when editors are arguing for adding a controversial political label to the first sentence of a politicians biography it's because they don't really like that politician -- almost all US politician biographies on Wikipedia do not have political labels of any kind in their opening sentence.

  So, lets flip this on its head. Instead of trying to dredge up what may be a rare example of how she is labelled/described in reliable sources by specifically searching for them (e.g. by googling "Kari Lake far right" or something), it will be better to look for sources about Kari Lake in general, and see what they say. Here is the first page of results on Google News when I search "Kari Lake", in the order they appear:

Extended content

First page of results for me at https://www.google.com/search?q=kari+lake&tbm=nws: "Republican Kari Lake" (LA Times); does not mention "far-right" "Republican challenger Kari Lake" (The Arizona Republic); does not mention "far-right" "Arizona GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake" (The Hill); does not mention "far-right" The Arizona Republic op-ed; does not mention "far-right" Just starts with "Kari Lake" then says "Lake, a former television newscaster who surged to the GOP nomination in August after being endorsed by former president Donald Trump" (AZ Mirror); does not mention "far-right" Introduced in the subheader as "An election-denying former journalist" (BBC); does not mention "far-right" "Arizona's Kari Lake" (this article is also mostly about her denying election results (ABC News (the Australian one)); does not mention "far-right" This is the video from the other BBC article in isolation, not sure why it's a separate result "Republican Kari Lake" (Arizona Daily Star: Tucson.com. I don't know what this source is); does not mention "far-right" "Arizona GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake" (The Hill); does not mention "far-right"

The first page ends there. Zero of those sources call her far-right. What's happened here is that editors had the desire to call her far-right, and went digging for the rare, exceptional sources which labelled her like that. (Actually, it's even worse, as many(most?) of the sources offered up to support that label didn't even label her that way.) This is not how we should be doing things. We should not settle on a conclusion, in this case a label we want to apply to her, and go digging for rare sources which support that conclusion. We should look at how sources about Kari Lake describe her, and follow them. Endwise (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I guess you don't know this, but the first page of results on Google News is no authority on WP:BESTSOURCES.

Your accusation of WP:POVSOURCING is not at all what happened here. Editors found sources that evaluate Lake's political ideology (which are not at all rare), and they overwhelming consider her to be far-right. Of course sources that do not evaluate her political ideology don't mention it.

Lastly I'll remind you that WP:AGF is not optional, so please do not cast aspersions about editors' motives. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

first page of results on Google News is no authority on WP:BESTSOURCES -- The first page of Google News results isn't the authority on this, it's just my way of explaining my point. Every source about her describes her as the (now former I guess?) Republican nominee for Governor of Arizona, and a television news anchor. That is how she is generally, widely and consistently described, so it is how we should introduce her in this article. The "far-right" label is comparatively rare, meaning we can possibly make note of it somewhere in the article, but certainly not the first sentence. That's the point I was trying to convey.

Your accusation of WP:POVSOURCING is not at all what happened here -- carrying out a google search for "Kari Lake far-right", listing all the results you get (some apparently without properly reading them?), and saying bob's your uncle that's WP:DUE satisfied, seems to me to be precisely what that essay is advising against.

do not cast aspersions about editors' motives -- I'm genuinely not sure about your (or other's) motivations here. I was explaining my general skepticism about the rush to apply controversial political labels to the lead sentence of politician's biographies, not explaining what I think your motivations are.

Editors found sources that evaluate Lake's political ideology, and they overwhelming consider her to be far-right -- essentially every politician's article does not include an ideological label in their opening sentence, so it's clearly not enough if the argument is just that the weight of sources allows us quote "far-right" as the political ideology she subscribes to in our own voice. And I'm still not convinced of even that. For instance, here are three deep dives into Kari Lake and her political views (the first three I found, I pinky promise I didn't selectively search): NYT, Atlantic, MJ. All three go into depth about her political views and their evolution over the years, and none of them say she is "far-right". The more I research this the more I'm convinced that the far-right label really is rare in reliable sources. (What's not rare, btw, is describing her as an election denier, so mention of her denying the results 2020 election should probably go in the lead somewhere.) Endwise (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• I've removed the recently added sources from the lead. I will also note that those sources are not sufficient to claim "far-right" in wiki-voice in the opening sentence of the BLP. NYT is behind a paywall so I can't see if it directly calls Lake "far-right". The Guardian doesn't directly call her far-right while it does associate her with groups/people it says are far-right. Politico seems to be a headline, stream of consciousness dump. It mentions Lake only once and provides no substance to support the label. If this is the sum of what we have, I would argue this isn't even sufficient to call her far-right with attribution anywhere in the lead. Additionally, "far-right" is always a problematic label since it's not clear what the user views as far-right and how does that compare to the things our article on the subject says are parts of far-right. This flexible definition ends up creating kind a Motte-and-bailey fallacy where sources can call someone far-right for views that are certainly to the far-right of respectable political discord but not white nationalism, not facists etc. Yet the taint of those extremist sticks to the label and thus suggesting positions the person has not expressed nor could be reasonably extracted from her statements/actions. Springee (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the general consensus here that we need to have numerous reliable sources attributing someone to the far-right in order to apply that label in the lead.

After checking the sources posted here and doing additional research it appears to me that this is definitely satisfied. We do have enough reliable sources that call her far-right and we have additional ones that attribute her to the far-right. I think the argument of "it is not clear what the users view as far-right" is not fair at all as the users reading these reliable sources would presumably have the same issue.

I would add the following source for consideration and recommend that we do note Kari Lake as far-right: [1] CrazyPredictor (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

References

• • Being an election-denier qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

No, that means she denied election results. If that is all there is then we should report that and not apply the much broader "far-right" as that could imply things views/positions she doesn't have. Springee (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

That's on the far-right checklist. Also, various other positions she's taken, as listed in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Having one thing in common with "far-right" doesn't make someone far-right. Again, this is the problem with flexible definitions. They are often used by people/writers etc to apply scarlet letters to people/groups by finding some characteristics in common while ignoring that the whole definition doesn't fit. It's done a lot because it's effective even if it's also often misleading. We shouldn't be doing it as our mission is to inform, not persuade. Springee (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Not "one thing", but many things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Fruit Loops is part of this "complete breakfast". That doesn't mean it is a complete breakfast. Springee (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a good metaphor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The everybody/nobody thing reminds me of a quote attributed to Yogi Berra, commenting on a restaurant: "Nobody goes there anymore - it's too crowded." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

In the body

FormalDude, I'm not sure the sources here[31] are sufficient to claim that "Throughout her campaign, Lake was described as "a champion of the far-right" movement in the United States." I do appreciate that this is an attributed statement and it's location in the body is more appropriate. With better sourcing I think this comment could be included. That said, these appear to be the same sources discussed above. The Politico statement seems to be from a stream of consciousness/blog type entry. It calls her far-right but without supporting evidence. I'm not sure it's a strong source. The Guardian, as I noted above, associates her with people/groups it calls far-right but doesn't call her far right and I'm not sure it calls her a champion of the far right. The NYT source is behind a pay wall. Anyway, if we are going to provide a direct quote, "a champion of the far-right" then we need to provide the actual source. If that is a quote from a NYT columnist then we need to say "NYT columnist X said she is..." We can't reasonably invent a quote and then suggest it comes verbatim from all three of these sources. At the same time, I think the previous concerns regarding if we have enough sources to call her "far-right" still stand. Those sources alone don't suggest weight to even use it in an attributed form. Springee (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The direct quote is from the NYT article. I don't know how people still use "pay wall" as an excuse when there's probably a dozen ways to easily bypass paywalls. The easiest way is to use Internet Archive, and I've gone ahead and pulled the archived link for you for the NYT article here. It's not attributable to a journalist, but we could attribute it to the NYT. I don't feel the need to do that though since a plethora of other RS also describe her as far-right.

The Politico source is fine, what are you basing that it "seems to be a blog type entry" on? Your personal interpretation? Because it's clearly a regular news article from an established RS.

The Guardian source does call her far-right: "Of all the far-right, Trump-endorsed Republicans on the ballot this election cycle, Lake might just have the most star power." ––FormalDude (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The NYT article is also a blurb thing so I wouldn't consider it sufficient to support a contentious label/association. Also, if this is a direct quote we shouldn't include links to the Wiki article inside of the quote. I believe that is a MOS thing. Anyway, if we want to link her with far-right we really need better sourcing. Endwise already said that she wasn't I'm all but certain that better sourcing exists. If it doesn't we shouldn't link her via the text. Regardless, we need actual articles, not blub things. Springee (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

One could drown in those blub things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the MOS policy is on wikilinks inside of quotes. We have it for the quote of her tweet: "Arizonans know BS when they see it." I've definetely seen it done elsewhere but I'd love to know what the policy/consensus is.

I'd also like to see some policy-based reasoning for why a "blurb thing" is automatically unreliable. I'm not even sure what you mean by "blurb thing" in the first place. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Personally I'm fine with FormalDude's edit here. As I said in my long ramble above, sourcing does exist for this, it just appeared to be comparatively rare as a label that's applied to her, so we can't introduce her that way in the opening sentence. But it is mentioned in reliable sources, so we probably should mention it somewhere. Endwise (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I think something like this probably can be sourced but I do not agree that, with perhaps the exception of the Guardian, the sources provided are sufficient. When we have an article that is covering Lake and says, "she is X to the far-right", that's fine. However, one of the three sources doesn't even have an author listed. The other, isn't an article so much as some type of running commentary or listing of events/stories. Those basically aren't good sources as such they don't provide weight. As for the link inside of the quote, MOS:LINKQUOTE takes us to the needed information. The quoted text comes from the NYT blurb thing. They don't say anything about what makes Lake far-right or makes her supporters far-right. Our far-right article contains several different things including white nationalism, racism, authoritianism etc. Unless we can show that those aspects of "far-right" are the ones intented, we are at risk of implying something the unnamed NYT writer may not have intented. Effectively, we are implying our definition rather than theirs. So for that reason we shouldn't use a link within a quote. I would be cautionus about using it outside of the quote as well for the same reason. This is the time we need to explain what aspects of Lake appeal to the far-right. If we can't then we should question why we want to include a label that is, to crib a legal expression, more prejudicial than probative. We should be explaining to readers, not just telling them what labels political opponents might have applied. Springee (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

https://time.com/6225004/kari-lake-arizona-maga-right-interview/ How Kari Lake Went From Local Anchor to New Face of the MAGA Right ... She has vowed to root out “woke teaching” from schools and block vaccine mandates of any kind, measures that Arizona political analysts suspect would be supported in the state legislature. And she’s planning to engage the Biden administration in a series of legal fights—on everything from education to the border—with the goal of engineering favorable rulings from a conservative Supreme Court.

The fact is that there is hardly a far-right position that she doesn't hold, and this is overwhelmingly documented by numerous RS. "far-right" was removed against consensus and should be restored. -- Jibal (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The material you quoted from Time doesn't call her "far-right". Her association with Trump is already established. Springee (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It's wrong to pretend that "MAGA right" isn't far right. "far-right" was removed against consensus and should be restored. Jibal (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

That may be obvious to you and me, but proper sourcing is needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)