Talk:Karoline Leavitt

Lies and Misdirections

Why isn't there more information about the constant stream of lies Leavitt has told the press on a daily basis, in her efforts to protect Trump from frequent charges of pedophilia, theft, grifting, racism, rape, and fascism?

Reference to religious beliefs

is it accurate to call her a practicing Roman Catholic, if it is well documented she had a child with her husband well before they got married? “Raised Catholic” or “cafeteria Catholic” may be better descriptors, as practicing Catholic implies that she would not have been engaged in out-of-wedlock sexual relationships. Oxfordcomma (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is well-documented that they married in January 2025, after getting a child. Whether she is a practicing Roman Catholic, that's at least how she presents herself. Alenoach (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the sentences following the one stating her religion are sycophantic and anecdotal. I suggest removing "She emphasizes the importance of faith in her life, specially in facing the demands of her work. She begins each day with a prayer to ask for strength, and conducts a team prayer before each press briefing to ask for confidence and the ability to articulate her words." This is something you would read in a peoples magazine, not a serious encyclpedia. ~2026-85738-9 (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that part sounds more like what you would expect from a peoples magazine. And that just comes from her own statements, we don't have independent evidence of it. I removed it. Alenoach (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"had a child with her husband well before they got married" How is Roman Catholicism relevant to Leavitt's sexuality? I live in a city where about 2/3 of the population are nominally Christian, and 1/3 nominally Muslim. I don't recall anyone requesting permission from the local bishop or other priests to have sex or to have kids. Dimadick (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Put simply, anyone's opinion here of how a person is living their life is irrelevant to whether we have a source that states she is a practicing Roman Catholic, as this one does. --ZimZalaBimtalk 13:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course pre-marital intercourse is a mortal sin according to Roman catholicism and that would imply that she doesn't live by catholic morals. Even when catholic measures are applied, this per se doesn't exklude her from her faith. She may be a "public sinner" if you will, but not an apostate. ZimZalaBim is very right here. ~2025-32540-67 (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gaslighting

The article seems light and not current. Leavitt is the subject of widespread criticism for her dissemination of falsehoods during WH press briefings. There needs to be a 'Controversies' section. We are not dealing here with Jen Psaki. Warsaw73 (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Karoline Leavitt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 00:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 04:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy to take this review; I'm impressed by the work you've done on your project of writing about officials in the second Trump administration, which I'm sure is a very difficult subject area to work on. Since it's a contentious topic (and a highly viewed article), I will try to be particularly thorough with this review. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is good.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead section hits the key points. Layout is as expected for a politician article. No WTW issues. Lists in the electoral history section are good.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. References are listed.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Article is sourced to news and magazine sources. Biased sources are used only for statements of fact. Primary sources are used appropriately.
2c. it contains no original research. Article reflects what is in sources.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig says 13.0%, only flags proper nouns and generic phrases.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Article describes all the key positions Leavitt has held and her significance.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Article discusses the subject without too much detail.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Article does a solid job with covering a controversial political subject. Article excludes statements of opinion to focus on statements that are definite.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Article is stable enough. The current content of the article is in line with talk page consensuses. No edit wars; the only instances of multiple reverts are cases of clear vandalism.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All files are public domain government works or freely licensed photographs.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images depict Leavitt, along with one depicting her alma mater, which is relevant.
7. Overall assessment. A solidly written BLP about a political figure. Good work with an article about a prominent subject.

Initial comments

  • I'll start by asking about the broadness criteria. Karoline Leavitt is someone who, because of her job, has a LOT of sources that mention her. Can you state your reasoning for why this article meets all of the key points? (I will probably raise some specific points later, but I'll start with this more vague question.)
  • Her middle name is sourced to a public record, which is unacceptable per WP:BLPPRIMARY and must be fixed. Personal information must use either a primary source from Leavitt herself or a reliable secondary source, or be removed.
  • Can you explain why California Catholic Daily is a reliable source?
  • At least one of the sources is a dead link: source 3, from MSN. On that note, I suggest (but won't require) that we directly state the original publication, instead of just the news aggregator MSN.
  • I think the "Post-election work" subsection is a bit too short. I suggest that the first sentence could be moved to the previous section, as it deals with the immediate aftermath of her campaign, and the rest could be moved to the following section, as Trump's campaign is directly connected to his presidency. But it's fine either way.
  • I'll be doing a few copyedits myself for style and clarity.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The "LOT of sources" you mention primarily concern comments Leavitt has made. Press secretaries usually do not have much media attention beyond their comments.
  2. Removed.
  3. I cannot, as I did not add that citation.
    If you cannot convince me that this source is reliable, it must be removed, or else this fails the reliable sourcing criterion. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The source was already removed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I have changed the citation.
  2. That was an intentional decision to avoid confusing her non-relevant roles.
    Ah, makes sense. I'll accept the short section in this case. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

  • Deputy officeholders in infobox are unsourced.
  • This isn't really an issue, but is there a reason that the voice clip is of her discussing the Laken Riley Act?
  • I think writing for the school newspaper, founding a broadcasting club is an unnecessary detail for the lead; this could be shortened to something like was involved in journalism. But it's fine either way.
  • I think sentence In November 2024, then-President-elect Trump named Leavitt as his White House press secretary. could be phrased better. It feels like the sort of awkward phrasing that results from a statement being added as soon as the news happens, then staying around beyond its relevance.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Removed.
  2. The voice clip was added before I started writing, if I recall correctly. It was an instance of her speaking days after her tenure began.
  3. Agreed, changed.
  4. I don't see the issue here.
    I'd say my concern with this statement is that the timing of the announcement is not important enough for the lead, per WP:ANNOUNCED. This is just my opinion, though, so no action is needed. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • The statement Her family owns [...] and her father owns is in the present tense, but the source indicates it's referring to her youth.
  • Perhaps specify that Saint Anselm College is in New Hampshire.
  • It'd be useful to specify that Trump was the president during her White House Office of Presidential Correspondence job. (Also, do sources not specify the Senator she interned for?)

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Changed.
  2. Done.
  3. Done. I am not aware of any sources that mention the specific senator. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Career

  • I don't think the statement of the event with Amy Coney Barrett is really relevant; it'd be more concise to simply state that Leavitt got COVID during the White House outbreak, as the article on the outbreak provides more detail.
  • A few notes on the sentence about the Leavitt/Mowers divide:
    • We mention a difference in "strategies" but don't say anything about what the strategies are.
    • exposed a divide in the Republican Party I think the use of the word "exposed" is kind of unencyclopedic; it implies that the divide came unexpectedly.
    • Also not sure about saying support from right-wing lawmakers, as the source says Mowers received support from conservatives, which are also part of the right wing. Then again, the source's phrasing of "hard-right" would be a contentious label, so I don't know what the right phrasing would be.
  • Should briefly say what Project 2025 is, for readers who may be unfamiliar.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Changed.
  2. Changed.
    I personally think the word "firebrand" is a bit esoteric; I wouldn't expect most people to know that word. I'd suggest something like "confrontational". — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Changed.
    I think the phrase "support from Republican lawmakers" needs to be more specific to make it clear that we're referring to a specific wing of the party. Not sure how to phrase it in wikivoice, but maybe "lawmakers aligned with Trump". — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

White House Press Secretary

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Done.
  2. That structure is not possible given that Zeke Miller's allegations were in the lawsuit. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions

  • I've edited this section myself to reorder two sentences for clarity. Besides this and some small copyedits, this section looks good.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

  • Sources do not verify international attention for the photograph. Sources only state that it gained attention on the internet.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add this and I explicitly said it should be removed, but I was overruled with consensus that the exact phrasing of this sentence be included. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay in these comments. I'll get to the source spotcheck soon. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck and notes on breadth

  • I checked RS coverage of Leavitt to see if there are any important points that were excluded. It looks like you've included all of the most important points, but there are a few smaller points I would like to discuss:
    I think there needs to be more information about Leavitt's style of communication as Press Secretary. (I briefly mentioned this above, with regards to her Congressional campaign, but it's also important as part of her tenure as Press Secretary). Sources about her focus on her provocative, confrontational style [1]. While more specific descriptions of her style are more opinionated, I believe something brief would be appropriate for Wikipedia.
    Our article mentions that Leavitt has voiced support for non-traditional media, but I would think it would be useful to include more specific info about this. Specifically, she added a seat reserved for "new media" [2][3][4], and she held a press conference exclusive to online creators [5][6][7][8]. (The sources also specify that the participants are MAGA influencers, but I'll defer to you as to whether that's due weight for the article.)
    And a minor biographical detail: she studied in Italy for one semester [9]. There's not much information about it but the detail might as well be included.
  • I'll do a spotcheck of 10 randomly selected sources. Citation numbers as of this revision:
  1. checkY
  2. checkY checkY checkY checkY checkY checkY
    A minor detail that I would suggest including is that her role at MAGA Inc. involved television. There are also two points mentioned in both this and the Wren Politico source: she grew up in a family that watched Fox News, and she works alongside Steven Cheung.
  3. checkY ☒N It appears that this is a misinterpretation of the term "body man", which actually means "personal aide"
    I think it's an important point that her Congressional primary campaign was a long shot at first (third in the race); I'd suggest including details like her consulting support from Axiom, her frequent media appearances, and her focus on 2020 denialism. I also think it's an important point that she expressed strong support for Trump in college; I'd suggest specifying that she founded the college's broadcasting club after leaving the student newspaper. Another thing I'd suggest specifying is that she was present during the Jan 6 attack (rather than reacting as an outside observer). The source also mentions that she lived in Hampton, New Hampshire, which is perhaps useful biographical info.
  4. checkY
  5. checkY
  6. checkY
  7. checkY
  8. checkY
  9. checkY I think the source doesn't adequately verify the phrasing of Her tenure marked a separation from precedent, particularly with the treatment of traditional media. It would be more precise to say that selecting the press pool, specifically, is what marked a separation from precedent.
  10. checkY

@ElijahPepe: Apologies for taking so long with this review. I have a few notes about breadth to address. Good work with this article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Both should be resolved. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good enough for GA now. Per my above suggestions, there are still a few phrases that I think are a bit off—I think the phrase Her tenure marked a separation from precedent should be more like Her treatment of the media marked a separation from precedent, and I think the phrase support from Republican lawmakers does not convey that it is a specific wing of the party. These points still stand, and there are some points I noted in the source spotcheck that I would have included if I were writing this article, but this is just my opinion and it is beyond the GA requirements. Marking this as a pass; well done. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Karoline_Leavitt