Talk:Kari Lake/Archive 2

Election citations
https://www.courthousenews.com/kari-lake-sues-to-get-election-records-from-maricopa-county/

Kari Lake sues Maricopa County over election records as of November 2022. This will affect how Arizona's voting certification is reported according to this article. 67.180.47.171 (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/11/24/cochise-county-official-says-she-will-vote-to-certify-election-results/69672792007/

https://www.kgun9.com/news/local-news/cochise-county-accepts-election-results-until-next-meeting

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/county-in-northwestern-arizona-delays-certifying-election-for-now

Three counties in Arizona has been named as delaying certification of the 2022 election so far.this is tied to this dispute.67.180.47.171 (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Lawsuit now mentioned. Awaiting results. As for certification, let's wait to see if any actually county goes beyond the deadline, and whether December 5 state certification is affected.  starship .paint  (exalt) 07:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is more on the Arizona voter certification debacle.

https://www.abc15.com/news/political/elections/cochise-county-refuses-to-certify-election

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/28/politics/arizona-county-delays-election-challenges/index.html

https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2022/11/28/maricopa-mohave-counties-certify-election-results-cochise-county-delays/

So far Cochise County, AZ refused to certify election 2601:640:C682:8870:9CBD:18F:D06F:F08B (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Only Cochise County refused, all the rest certified. If you check the unofficial results Lake got 27,481 votes in Cochise County to Hobbs' 19,137 votes. If Cochise County's results are voided, Lake loses by an even larger margin.  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Cochise has now certified, so probably December 5 Arizona will publish the official results.  starship .paint  (exalt) 09:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Kari Lake's Lawsuit over the 2022 elections are dismissed. https://www.newsweek.com/kari-lake-refuses-back-down-arizona-election-1764395

Ok Between December 2022 and Inauguration day expect rumors of an insurrection at the Arizona State Capital to escalate. https://news.yahoo.com/kari-lake-criticizes-judge-sanctioned-014313842.html 2601:640:C682:8870:6085:D781:6EA0:3D25 (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Turns out the state of Arizona certified the 2022 elections

https://www.newsweek.com/kari-lake-refuses-back-down-arizona-election-1764395 https://news.yahoo.com/arizona-election-results-certified-kari-190800854.html https://www.abc15.com/news/political/elections/secretary-of-states-office-to-certify-arizona-election-on-monday https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/05/arizona-2022-election-republican-complaints-00072452

Yes the entire states election has been verified but there are still complaints by Kari Lake supporters 2601:640:C682:8870:C49D:5DD6:773B:DEC8 (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022
Please change "a force to be reckoned with" to

"a force to be reckoned with.

Lake's campaign featured near-daily video releases from her home, all identical in their background and the odd use of "soft-focus" filters to set a warm tone and incidentally conceal her facial wrinkles. These videos were rapidly parodied by images showing her completely out of focus." Cheopys (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Would need a source commenting on this stuff Cannolis (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's minutia, doesn't belong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment: politician or political candidate?
How should Lake be described in the lede sentence? 1. politician (current version at the time of writing)

2. political candidate

3. former candidate for Governor of Arizona

4. other (please specify) –– FormalDude  (talk)  07:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arizona, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illinois, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women. –– FormalDude (talk)  07:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I’d go with C. I think you only become a politician when you are elected to something (which would include people holding formal roles inside a political party) - if merely standing for election once were enough, all sorts of people would qualify. MapReader (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, this is the only biography on Wikipedia that describes a person who has never held a political office and has only ran in one election as a "politician". –– FormalDude  (talk)  07:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel De Leon never held elected office. Also, Rocky De La Fuente, Alan Keyes, Willie Wilson, Farrell Dobbs, Andrew Pulley, Matthias Koehl, Ross Perot and Faith Spotted Eagle. There are many more. Cullen328 (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I said "political office", not elected office. Most of those people held appointed political roles, something Lake has never done. Also looks like most of those people ran for election multiple times, whereas Lake has only run once. –– FormalDude  (talk)  09:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I just found Mike Erickson. Never held political office, ran for it, called "politician". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Mike Erickson has run multiple times in the past, Lake has only run once. That said, Mike is more accurately described as a perennial candidate and I have updated his article accordingly. –– FormalDude  (talk)  01:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a good question, since the election is over I believe that "political candidate" is the poorest description. I do not object to "politician" since in the wider sense, it takes a politician to put together even a failed popular run for governor of AZ. But enough of our own opinions: do WP:RS describe her as a politician? If so then yes, if not then no. Elizium23 (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option C. I have no idea if she will in general become a politician or not. She did run for Governor, once. Let's make the most specific statement that is unquestionably true. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option A Although Lake has just run for office and never been elected, according to Wikipedia's definition of Politician which begins with: "A politician is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking an elected office in government." Lake would be considered a politician since according to Time, they suggest she will remain a force in the GOP. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * politician is fine as-is, until or if it becomes clear that she's not running for anything again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * B or C with a preference for C as I believe that is the only position for which she has run. Springee (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You all are off the mark. Read Politician for a real definition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a picture of Kari Lake at Politician or even a mention of her... –– FormalDude  (talk)  12:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * - I presume you're using "a person active in party politics" as your "real definition"; the problem with that definition is that, interpretted literraly, it's ridiculously expansive. I'm registered w/ my political party. Does that make me "active in party politics"? Am I a "politician"? I hope not.... NickCT (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going by what the article says. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option C - (summoned by bot) - This may be a "recent-ist" POV, but she seems primarily notable for her canidacy in the governers race. NickCT (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option C This is a good summary for why she is notable. Nemov (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option A From Oxford dictionary: pol·i·ti·cian /ˌpäləˈtiSHən/ (noun): a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office. From politician: A politician is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking an elected office in government. Emphasis added – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we all accept that she technically fits that definition of politician. The argument is that she is not best described as a politician. –– FormalDude  (talk)  19:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering she says she's going to fight the results in the legal system, it's way too soon to be calling her a former-political-anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure how that supports calling her a politician. That would be justification for calling her an election denier. –– FormalDude  (talk)  20:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "She meets the definition of a politician but is not best described as a politician." Honestly that sentence makes no sense to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For example, Kanye West also meets that definition, but you don't see us describing him as one in the lede sentence. –– FormalDude  (talk)  21:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Kanye is notable for his music first and foremost, his fashion line second, and his "campaign" for president is way down the list. MOS:LEADBIO tells us not to include every sundry thing, so Kanye wouldn't get this appellation. Nobody heard of Kari Lake (aside from whoever watched her local news broadcasts) before she became a politician by running for office. She's notable for these two things and is best described by them both. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And you have thus explained why editors support option C "former candidate for Governor of Arizona". It is more accurate than the vague term "politician". –– FormalDude  (talk)  21:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like a weird way to avoid referring to the Republican nominee for governor of Arizona as a "politician". Why the insistence on not calling her this? I don't understand the objection. It's what she's known for. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A, still heavily involved in politics and what's she's known for.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option D She ran for office once and lost, that fits no definition of politician as a career or a defining characteristic. Lake is a former television news anchor, full stop, the next sentence can detail her brief foray into politics. Should she run again for something (likely Sinema's seat in 24), we can revisit this. ValarianB (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option C is most precise. If she runs again, or has further political activities, we could always revisit, but C is the clearest and most informative for readers. DFlhb (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * She's still running. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A judge already found there was no evidence of disenfranchisement; the election is as good as over. There'll surely be stuff to add in a "Challenge to election results" subsection though. DFlhb (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That would work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That ruling had to do with whether to keep the polls open later on election day. Lake is going ahead with hiring a legal team to challenge the results. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed; if option C is chosen, I wouldn't mind waiting to make the change until the challenges are resolved. DFlhb (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with ValarianB, she should first be described as a former news anchor. Her thirty years working in news media are a more important part of her biography than running for office once. The "political career" section should also be trimmed down to remove trivia. – Anne drew  21:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option D per ValarianB. Lake should be described as a former newscaster. Her run for office should be featured prominently in the lead, like the next sentence, but not used as a descriptor. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 02:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option D per TAnthony. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option A – She won the Republican primary to be the Republican candidate for governor of Arizona. This accomplishment and her continuing involvement in politics makes her currently a politician. Perhaps, in ten years this will no longer be the case, and the political aspect of her life will have only been minor. If this becomes the case, then at that time the designation as a politician can be removed from the lead sentence. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * D per ValarianB. Her 30 year career is what should define her initial descriptor. C if necessary since that is the most precise. Anon0098 (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The dilemma being that she didn't even have an article here until she declared for the governor's race. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, it looks like Conservapedia's own article on Lake wasn't created until almost 2 months after the Wikipedia article was. So apparently she wasn't considered notable even by them before she declared. Conclusion: What she is most notable for is being a politician. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't exactly consider Conservapedia a good litmus test for Wikipedia. And article creation doesn't necessarily indicate notability Anon0098 (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, she's notable for being a candidate for Governor of Arizona. Whether or not that makes her a politician is completely irrelevant. The lede should provide the most accurate description, not vague generalizations. –– FormalDude  (talk)  19:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * B or C It's almost impossible to be a major party candidate for a major office like governor and not have that be a major part of your notability, no matter how big a public figure you were before, so D's out. But A is also out, IMO, since she was only a candidate for one office and has never held any other elected or appointed office. Between B and C, I think C is clearer but that's a very slight preference. Loki (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * C or A I don't find the arguments against "politician" at all valid, but C is specific and encyclopedic and entails "political candidate" as well as "politician" (for those who agree with the argument that she is one). B is needlessly non-specific and D doesn't fly because she was only known as a newscaster in a local market but is now known nationally and even globally as having run for AZ governor. -- Jibal (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - she won't be a former candidate until the election is officially certified by the state (due for December 5).  starship .paint  (exalt) 00:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * She (likely) won't be done contesting the results by then either. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Contesting election results doesn't mean she won't still be a former candidate. –– FormalDude  (talk)  04:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a matter of perception and opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not if the certified results from the state say she lost... it'd be a legal fact. –– FormalDude  (talk)  05:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option C. Even though the definition would technically include her, since she has done only one political-related thing (running for Governor of AZ), that label (C) would be appropriately narrow. It would be different if she had held another office or did some other governmental work. SWinxy (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option A . It is possible to be a politician and not be an elected official.MOS:PEOPLETITLESKerdooskis (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:PEOPLETITLES does not appear to have any bearing on the matter. –– FormalDude  (talk)  22:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Option B is more precise than Option A without being too wordy like Option C. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Option C or D: Former/defeated "Republican gubernatorial candidate" seems like the most common description in some of the latest WP:RS. Here is what we find, based on a quick search:
 * ABC News: "A judge has thrown out Republican Kari Lake's challenge ..."
 * Al Jazeera: "One of the highest-profile Republican candidates in the midterm elections, Kari Lake ..."
 * CNN: "An Arizona judge on Saturday rejected Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake’s lawsuit ..."
 * The Independent (UK): "Arizona candidate came up short ..."
 * NPR: "A judge has thrown out Republican Kari Lake's challenge ..."
 * The New York Times: "Kari Lake, a Republican who was defeated by Katie Hobbs ..."
 * USA Today: "A judge on Saturday dismissed Republican Kari Lake’s election challenge ..."
 * Wall Street Journal: "Defeated Arizona GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake ..."
 * Washington Post: "... Kari Lake, the defeated GOP candidate for governor in Arizona ..."
 * A number of sources even just refer to Lake as a Republican without any other qualifiers. As an encyclopedia, we should probably be more descriptive than that, but just wanted to point this out. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Politician?
I feel like one needs to be elected or appointed to public office in order to meet the definition of “politician”. Running for office, doesn’t make you a politician. This page should be amended. I’m also not sure her party switches are noteworthy for a Wikipedia entry. Should she ever win, these things may become relevant. Again, as she is not a politician, this information is irrelevant. 96.41.45.197 (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Broadly speaking, a politician can be anyone who seeks to achieve political power in a government, and she still is. soibangla (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well Kari Lake has been listed as a conspiracy theorist by some of the news sources because she refuses to concede the 2022 elections.
 * https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/opinion/ct-lns-talk-of-county-st-1130-20221128-wwrvrxnhyjhsbkdu4zqfh3ylka-story.html
 * https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/11/30/23484972/kari-lake-election-denier-arizona-trump
 * https://www.reuters.com/world/us/arizona-judge-dismisses-election-denier-kari-lakes-bid-overturn-vote-results-2022-12-24/
 * In Reuters Case she is listed as an election conspiracy theorist given the lawsuits.2601:640:C682:8870:8864:8C82:1B96:79AA (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no reason for Wikipedia to define "politician" in the "broadly speaking" sense.


 * If you apply for a job as a trapeze artist but do not get the job, that does not make you a trapeze artist.


 * She is an "aspiring politician". At least that is a correct designation and unassailable. 2601:200:C000:1A0:EC44:97EE:7E6B:ACD (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Great whataboutism. Politics and gymnastics are not the same thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Kari Lake is a conspiracy theorist
 * https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/05/fact-check-false-claim-kari-lakes-lawsuit-circulates-online/10981899002/
 * We mentioned this in other places. Kari Lake is a conspiracy theorist like Mike Lindell is. 2601:640:C682:8870:CC61:F6C0:39BB:785B (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot adjuticate election claims
This article refers to claims of election fraud in 2020 as "false". Wikipedia has not done research into this issue, state legislatures in the contested states never met or issued constitutionally valid opinions on this matter and federal courts refused to her all of the cases about this. It is factually known that many states implemented COVID measures in 2020 that failed to meet the US Constitution's requirement that they follow laws established by state legislatures. Wikipedia should not use terms like "the false claim" when referring to contesting of the 2020 election. Doing so makes Wikipedia appear to be a left wing propaganda outlet as opposed to a factual reporting venue. 2600:1700:2210:BDE0:C9E8:1F3F:327B:B18D (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia didn't adjuticate (sic) the election claims. The courts did when they rejected every 2020-related lawsuit and sanctioned her for bringing a frivolous lawsuit for her false claims of fraud in her 2022 suit. We merely reflect what reliable sources say. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right that we can't (and shouldn't) research and adjudicate for ourselves which claims are true or false. That's why we have to rely on what reliable, trustworthy sources say on the matter (see Neutral point of view). If reliable sources acknowledge that the claims are false, then we have to too -- as you say, it's not up to us to adjudicate. Endwise (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You might want to review Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election soibangla (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Bias
The "false" claims does demonstrate extreme left wing bias. I agree that this word should be removed. 2600:1700:1C24:C070:F28D:7AC0:FFD2:85D8 (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No, saying it's "false" demonstrates accuracy as reported in the reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

False Claims
Just a comment on the use of the phrase ‘false claim’. As soon as you insist that the faked election claims are false (multiple times), you mark the whole piece as being a left-wing biased hit piece. It doesn’t matter whether the claims are false or not, the point is that a large % (probably more now with the current Twitter revelations) think there is a doubt. You would get a more credible piece by removing the the word false wherever it appears before ‘claim’. And simply stating once that the claims have not been proven in court. Slevdi (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter what percentage of people believe these false claims (and let's be real here, they're false): we include what reliable sources say, and they all agree that Lake's claims are bogus. If that makes you feel like this is a "left-wing biased hit piece", then... so be it I guess? ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The OP has made 8 edits in 15 years, so may not be that familiar with Wikipedia's rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your reliable sources are bullshit as usual like the Holocaust denying anti-semitic New York Times! 185.182.71.38 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol wow.... the NYT is anti-semetic and denies the Holocaust? Which parallel universe is that? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The universe in which science fiction movies are considered documentaries. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Correct, this is an encyclopedia where it is our duty to follow what reliable sources say, and relay the facts with as much certainty and clarity as possible. We're not supposed to be operating as journalists, or with editorial concerns, about our readership. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Courts did review Trump campaign ‘evidence’ of election fraud. Claims that say otherwise are wrong. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/motions-for-sanctions-filed-against-kari-lake-in-maricopa-county https://www.12news.com/article/news/politics/elections/governor-elect-katie-hobbs-maricopa-county-file-sanctions-against-kari-lake/75-bee01ffe-4680-4a9b-a839-0ba11b2106e1 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/hobbs-seeks-sanctions-lake-election-suit-dismissed-rcna63274 We got a new one Kari Lake and her legal team are a target of sanctions by the state of Arizona over her role in the 2022 election lawsuits. Note according to this complaint Governor Elect Hobbs and Maricopa County, AZ filed a sanctions complaint against Kari Lake and her legal team as of December 2022. 2601:640:C682:8870:E995:B8BA:BF9:16F4 (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, one makes fraudulent claims vs another with no proof whatsoever and these claims get dismissed by court. I think is normal that the defendant seeks to have the costs reimbursed that were caused by defending vs these fraudulent claims. --Denniss (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good Point here but then again we have to wait until Inauguration day to find out more about Kari Lake and her reaction to this given her history to run with the 2022 election conspiracy theories. 2601:640:C682:8870:8D2:40D4:8CD9:75D2 (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.12news.com/article/news/politics/elections/decision/maricopa-county-superior-court-judge-denies-katie-hobbs-motion-for-sanctions-against-kari-lake/75-85deb32b-4479-4188-84dc-cd72f7e729e8 https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/motions-for-sanctions-filed-against-kari-lake-in-maricopa-county Update according to local news updates Kari Lake must pay $33k in legal fees surrounding the 2022 election lawsuit.2601:640:C682:8870:6946:184:80D4:16EF (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-orders-kari-lake-to-repay-fees-related-to-election-lawsuit/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/28/kari-lake-lawsuit-judge-decline-election-challenge-sanction

Kari Lake must pay $33,000 in legal fees related to the 2022 election lawsuit. 2601:640:C682:8870:8864:8C82:1B96:79AA (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Establishment hit pieces
Why is wikipedia allowing leftist/establishment takeover of any politically sensitive subject, and then locking them against correction? What happened to the old editorial standards? 74.221.1.44 (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please identify the specific content that you object to, and link to actual reliable sources that support the changes you propose. If it is calling her allegations of a stolen election false, then I will point out to you that this was the overwhelming consensus of the courts and the actually reliable sources that evaluated her bogus claims. The old editorial standards remain: we summarize what actually reliable sources say about a topic, not what disinformation operatives spout. Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles are typically protected when there is significant activity by vandals, trolls and those who persist in adding content that is not supported by reliable sources, and this article has seen quite a lot of all that. Articles are not "locked down" to protect any given narrative or POV. Anyone who cannot access the article is free to suggest an edit on this page. soibangla (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

AP is reporting that Kari Lake is sued for Defamation
https://apnews.com/article/kari-lake-stephen-richer-defamation-lawsuit-9fe16e97b16edb8901171593cc399bf9

According to this report Kari Lake is sued by an Arizona official named Stephen Richer over claims that took place during the 2022 elections.2601:640:C901:C530:F8EB:E39E:195C:6EB3 (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Already in article since June 23 --Denniss (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

"we're at war"
I believe this stunning statement should be restored in full

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kari_Lake&diff=prev&oldid=1159763718 soibangla (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * We're not here to document every crazy thing she says. If some right-wing agitator brings guns to the Miami courthouse tomorrow, gets arrested, and says that he was doing what Kari Lake told him to do, then it might be WP:DUE. Otherwise, I don't know that it is. Why do you think that it is DUE regardless of what else happens? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure why you didn't ping me since you are highlighting my edit. Regardless, Muboshgu is correct.  We don't need to highlight every bit of rhetoric a person uses.  If the section is talking about their use of rhetoric that is different.  It's not clear how this is DUE in context of this article. Springee (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. If we documented every idiotic thing that … kari lake said, her Wikipedia page would be 100 miles long.Joseph M. Bethersonton (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead
The lead, as it currently stands, is written (footnotes excluded):

"Kari Lake Halperin (/ˈkɛəri/ KAIR-ee; born August 23, 1969) is an American former television news anchor and political candidate. She was the Republican nominee in the 2022 Arizona gubernatorial election, but lost to Democrat Katie Hobbs, who took office on January 2, 2023. Lake refused to concede and sued multiple times in an attempt to have the results overturned and herself declared the winner. Lake's lawsuits were rejected by the courts. Beginning her media career in the early 1990s, Lake was the anchor for the Phoenix television station KSAZ-TV from 1999 to 2021. She stepped down from her anchor role shortly before announcing her gubernatorial candidacy and won the Republican nomination with the endorsement of former president Donald Trump. Her campaign was marked by various controversies, including promoting false claims of Trump winning the 2020 presidential election and calling for the imprisonment of those who accepted Trump's defeat, including her Democratic opponent, Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs."

I believe this could be better. In particular, the flow could be improved. First, it introduces the subject in a way that any BLP would and what the subject is best known for. Then, it concentrates on one part of recent history that is the attempt to overturn the gubernatorial election before segueing to the subject's early career, her ascent to politics, and with that back to the election. The first part is good, but the part after reads awkwardly. Therefore, I propose a lead like:

"Kari Lake Halperin (/ˈkɛəri/ KAIR-ee; born August 23, 1969) is an American former television news anchor and political candidate who was the Republican nominee in the 2022 Arizona gubernatorial election, which she lost to Democrat and Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs. Beginning her media career in the early 1990s, Lake was the anchor for the Phoenix television station KSAZ-TV from 1999 to 2021. She stepped down from her anchor role shortly before announcing her gubernatorial candidacy and won the Republican nomination with the endorsement of former president Donald Trump. Her campaign was marked by various controversies, including promoting false claims of Trump winning the 2020 presidential election and calling for the imprisonment of those who accepted Trump's defeat, including her Democratic opponent, Katie Hobbs. Lake herself refused to concede the gubernatorial election and sued multiple times in an attempt to have the results overturned and herself declared the winner. The state courts rejected her lawsuits."

In this proposed lead, the text is largely the same, but the passage about the subject's attempt to overturn the gubernatorial election is moved to the end of the second paragraph. This to me not only flows better chronologically, but also connects to the previous sentence about her campaign being "marked by various controversies". You will notice other changes, such as "Arizona Secretary of State" being moved to the first paragraph and the Democrat's inauguration being omitted there. I do not understand why the inauguration part would be vitally important for the lead. You may also notice that "Lake's lawsuits were rejected by the courts." has become "The state courts rejected her lawsuits." It is my opinion that editors ought to use the passive voice sparingly. This is not a disapproval of the passive voice in general, but users should consider when the voice is necessary when it often leads to terseness being lost. That sentence takes advantage of the terseness by having "state" added to clarify that "courts" is referring to the courts of Arizona. The article is well sourced and potentially qualifies to be upgraded to C-Class, and I believe the changes would leave readers with a more favorable impression of the article's quality. I considered changing it myself, but realized that more needed to be done than to simply move the last two sentences of the first paragraph to the end of the second paragraph.  Free Media  Kid$  21:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I see that the lead has been trimmed down, and to an extent that is better than I imagined. I did make one change, though, which was that I moved behind the sentence about the lawsuit dismissals and rewrote it to, since the lawsuit losses already strongly entail the baselessness of the electoral fraud claims, and it just flows better to describe the development of the aftermath of her election loss that way anyway.  Free  Media  Kid$  07:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Biased report
Whoever authored this bio on Kari Lake in Wikipedia did not write it in a way that is becoming of a supposed fact-based encyclopedia and it was very disappointing. I looked this person up because I don't know anything about her and I am surprised that writing in such a clearly biased and opinionated fashion is tolerated by whoever monitors or approves these articles. For example, several times it refers matter-of-factly about the subject disseminating false information, such as about covid vaccines, something that is known to be a matter of contention. Wikipedia should not be something like Facebook that pushes or tolerates its articles selling a narrative. 24.188.188.196 (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Information about COVID-19 vaccines is not a matter of contention: one side is engaging with scientific facts, the other is not, and Kari Lake is firmly in the latter camp. We don't water our articles down to provide false balance. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your comment itself demonstrates the clear bias. There are peer-reviewed, medically sound reports on both "sides" of any CoVid issue, whether it is related to the disease's origin, its modes of attack, the best means of fighting it, and the efficacy and/or danger of injections developed specifically to either prevent, reduce, or mitigate its spread. (The very definition of "vaccine" was changed as a result of this controversy.) The flip-flop by the US government in the narrative regarding disease origin should itself be sufficient proof that not all "facts" were/are known immediately, and that none of this is "Truth" with a capital tee. For either side in a contentious issue to make the claim that one side is "facts" and the other is "not" is very much NOT in the spirit of consensus and balance. Furthermore, claiming that presenting text without loaded language is "watering down" or "false balance" is at the very least inappropriate language from a Wikipedia editor. --Eliyahu S Talk 11:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear you see my language as inappropriate, but I disagree, and it's fully in line with our policies - hell, WP:FALSEBALANCE is an existing policy in itself, which is what I'm referencing! To answer the rest of your response, could you please clarify which of the claims about COVID-19 you feel are not misinformation? ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"She was criticized"
I've removed a sentence, "she was criticized for sharing debunked and unverified information on Twitter."

The source did not say who criticized her or why. It's weasel wording. Ideally, if she was criticized, we should just cite that. DenverCoder19 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * it is sourced to deseret news. ValarianB (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Typo: “shebanning” abortion
Typo 130.44.172.42 (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Fixed.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)