Jump to content

Talk:Kari Lake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eegorr (talk | contribs) at 02:48, 3 December 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]

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]

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]

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[3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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