Jump to content

Talk:Kari Lake: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 221: Line 221:


:1. [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]], but 2. because of a lack of credible [[WP:RS|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. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 12:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:1. [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]], but 2. because of a lack of credible [[WP:RS|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. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk: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). [[Special:Contributions/24.156.179.25|24.156.179.25]] ([[User talk:24.156.179.25|talk]]) 01:41, 12 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. [[Special:Contributions/24.156.179.25|24.156.179.25]] ([[User talk:24.156.179.25|talk]]) 01:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


== Inaccuracies ==
== Inaccuracies ==

Revision as of 01:42, 12 November 2022

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

 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: [1][2]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Consistent? That would destroy their narrative. Eegorr (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eegorr: what narrative would that be? clpo13(talk) 03:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Who is "they"? Wikipedia's "narrative" is determined by reliable sources. Jibal (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Complete rewrite of this, if not the entirety of partisan wikipedia.

If it is claimed that a certain social media, such as gab, has white-supremicist, extremist and the like. It should be at least somewhat consistent with any website where a user can post something. Not based on specific rules wiki editors don't agree on, like freedom of speech. 70.172.28.245 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get started, friend. Have you seen the Wikipedia page for Jack Posobiec? It is far worse than this one. Eegorr (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reason I will not donate (though I want to ) to Wikipedia. Activists can run down a person’s character with weak links to partisan stories and camp the site if someone corrects their propaganda. Sorry Wikipedia but this is your fault. DWT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.84.46 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eegorr Good point, I'll take a look at this. Posobiecs page is definitely in breach of WP:REDFLAG seems to be the case here as well. MaximusEditor (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No rewrite is needed. These complaints are invalid. Conservapedia may be more to your liking. -- Jibal (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

It's a fact that she's spread falsehoods. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The complainant's neutrality is severely questionable. Jibal (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I'd like to continue to support Wikipedia... BUT...

I used to donate yearly to Wikipedia. Because of constant Partisan siding (like this page), I just cannot do it anymore. Wikipedia USED to be my "go to" site for great information, it has become so obviously one sided. Rather than stating Kari Lake "shared disinformation on Covid-19", why not "shared controversial information "? I suppose Wiki editors still think the Hunter Biden laptop was "Russian disinformation"??? Really sad folks. 98.97.32.145 (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because reliable sources say that she "shared disinformation on COVID-19". They do not say she "shared controversial information". Hunter Biden has no relevance to Kari Lake. We will miss the money that I doubt you ever donated. Why you think bringing that up would help your case is beyond me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to support Wikipedia because it doesn't elevate your biases, go right ahead. Jibal (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias/Partisan information

To begin, Wikipedia should at all times refrain from using words - especially in a paragraph header - such as, false, truth, falsities, truths, etc. In so doing, you immediately project your own bias information on a document that is supposed to be neutral. The negative undertones reflected on this article, and the singular bias sources, promote a general idea that in nature leads the audience to believe that this individual is generally and/or totally negative. This page should be taken down and rewrote by an unbiased source. 2600:1004:B14D:CBCD:8497:FCEC:BDBE:D8AF (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia should not refrain from using those terms -- there is no basis for your claims. In fact, they are false. Jibal (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As stated elsewhere on this page, Wikipedia uses words like 'false' if that information appears in our sources. If we couldn't ever say what's true or false we couldn't very well write an encyclopedia. Jno.skinner (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jno.skinner, how about Fact-checking Kari Lake, serial promoter of election lies and early frontrunner in GOP primary for Arizona governor? Because that's one of many times that the media calls it false. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It appears the lead was trimmed down by Vir4030 in early August [3]. 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)[reply]
Looks good to me. Eruditess (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-information on Twitter? It was proved not to be mis-information. Need to edit that.

This article claims Kari Lake was spreading mis-information but in itself this article is mis-information. I’m going to stop contributing to Wikipedia cause of the lies you have begun to spin. This is supposed to be a non-bias encyclopedia page. I’m very disheartened to recognize that this is no longer the case. 68.225.217.151 (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources EvergreenFir (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources demonstrate her misinformation. Discussions have been had about this on the talk page. I know because I've taken part in them. Look above, I'm not pointing out which sections. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to stop contributing to Wikipedia for any reason, including that it tells truths that you dislike. Jibal (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kari Lake page has a bit too much political bias.

The page on Kari lake is a bit too biased against her. Wikipedia should be as unbiased as possible, and I do not find that CNN tends to be a credible source for factual assertions. As such, I would suggest adding a few 'allegedlys' into the article, especially when it comes to both claims of alleged election fraud in 2020, and the political leanings of some of the people she associates with, namely that they are alleged far-right extremists. I do not know and can not speak as to the truth or falsehood of these statements, but the language used is rather strong. If there is doubt about a subject, Wikipedia should reflect as much, as this site should be about the facts of the matter, not the opinions of the authors. 104.166.15.227 (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find that CNN tends to be a credible source for factual assertions. Well there's your problem right there. Recalibrate how you perceive sources and then come back. Her claims of fraud are bogus and some of the people she associates with are as described. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find -- that isn't relevant to Wikipedia. Jibal (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Got a link for a tweet from her account that verifies her birthday? – Archer1234 (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the ref that cited world-wire.com as the source for "September 30, 1969"[1][n 1] 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bhatt, Priyanka (November 4, 2022). "Meet Kari Parents and Family". world-wire.com. Retrieved November 7, 2022.

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)[reply]

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

“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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Running for office makes someone a politician. Please read politician or consult a dictionary. 25stargeneral (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not sure what you're on about. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ser has provided six sources above that directly call her far-right... ––FormalDude (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Kari Lake branded a 'clown' by Arizona's Republican attorney general". The Independent. 2022-11-04. Retrieved 2022-11-10.
  2. ^ "In closing pitch, GOP makes Arizona a hotbed for far-right politics". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2022-11-10.
  3. ^ Okun, Eli. "POLITICO Playbook PM: Biden to visit storm-torn Florida and Puerto Rico". POLITICO. Retrieved 2022-11-10.
  4. ^ "Republicans eye 'wake-up call' for Biden in US midterms". 2022-11-06. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  5. ^ "'A really dangerous candidate': Kari Lake, the new face of Maga Republicanism". the Guardian. 2022-11-03. Retrieved 2022-11-10.
  6. ^ "In This Swing State, the Far Right Has Completed Its Takeover of the GOP". Haaretz. Retrieved 2022-11-10.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Inaccuracies

Television figure, bandwagon hanger on, not a politician 107.127.60.33 (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=n> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kari_Lake&oldid=1121391362"