Talk:Don Bolduc

Clearly written by subject or campaign

My vote is WP:TNT, would like to see what others think. Bdstack (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Much of it is unsourced, and I think the bit about the friendly fire doesn't appear neutral or necessarily relevant, especially considering no other part of the article is that specific. TheHalterman (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with TheHalterman. Many of these passages were lifted word-for-word from his campaign literature: https://donbolduc.com/

Wattersonbill (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The last sentence in the first paragraph seems to be so broad as to be pointless. Uwieshu (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

"far-right" in opening sentence

Describing a political candidate as "far-right" in Wiki-voice in the opening sentence of a BLP is a violation of LABEL. There are a number of related issues here. First, "far-right" can be considered a contentious label. This is especially true if we link to our article on the Radical right (United States) via a hyperlink from "far-right". The radical right (US) article says characteristics include white supremacism. Is that actually what the news sources meant when they said "far-right" or do they just mean the right most extent of the GOP? The sources did not say "radical-right" yet that is where the intro was sending readers to understand what was meant by "far-right". In effect we are applying a contentious label in wiki-voice based on some sources then using that to apply characteristics to the individual that were not in the referenced sources. Additionally, to apply this label in Wiki-voice we need to show that it is all but universally applied to the person. That hasn't been shown. A very quick survey of news articles shows that it isn't a near universal term. Another issue is this is content that is introduced in the article lead but no where else in the article. The body of the article never said "far-right" or "radical right" yet it was used in wiki-voice in the opening sentence. That violates lead follows body. Finally, at least three editors have contested this addition so consensus hasn't been established. Personally, I think it would make sense to have the political subtopic say he is described as "far-right" by media sources and find sources that explain why they say he is far right as references. Labels absent some level of definition are too easy to throw out or abuse and typically aren't encyclopedic. They often are attempts to appeal to the emotions of readers instead. Springee (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"Describing a political candidate as "far-right" in Wiki-voice in the opening sentence of a BLP is a violation of LABEL." Huh? Being on the far-right is a political position, and a claim which is very well sourced, being in virtually all of the articles regarding Bolduc's primary win, contrary to your claim otherwise.

The radical right (US) article says characteristics include white supremacism. I'm struggling to see the relevance of this. He's described all-bar universally as a far-right politician and so we should link to it in the lead. If you have any better suggestions, I'm all ears.

Is that actually what the news sources meant when they said "far-right" or do they just mean the right most extent of the GOP? Well, check the quotes in the sources, which @Doremo: kindly added to the citations. He's described as "Far-right New Hampshire Senate candidate Don Bolduc", "Don Bolduc, a far-right retired Army general", "a far-right candidate .... Retired Army Gen. Don Bolduc", "a far-right GOP candidate .... retired Gen. Don Bolduc", "A far-right candidate .... retired Army Brigadier General Don Bolduc" and a "far-right candidate". Seems fairly clear to me.

Another issue is this is content that is introduced in the article lead but no where else in the article. Fair enough, but it's in the article body now, along with the political positions that place him on the far-right.

Finally, at least three editors have contested this addition so consensus hasn't been established. With respect, you're the only one disputing this content being added who's actually citing policy and engaging. The other two have just been finger-wagging about "partisan-ness" or "divisiveness".

I maintain my position that the words "far-right" should stay in the lead. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Per ONUS, the burden to explain why this edit should be included should fall on those who are adding the content, not those who are rejecting it. Once it was rejected more than once and by more than one editor those who wanted to keep it should have made the case and verified consensus supported inclusion. Scu ba and CammyEditor both offered explanations for their removals. They weren't in depth as it was an edit summary but at some point those who wished to include should have come here to make a better case.

The relevance of linking to "radical right" should be clear. To some extent it's a ESTEREGG link but it also shows the issue with using the label in Wikivoice. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on "far-right American Politicians" so readers may assume that when we say X is far-right we actually mean he is a white supremacist. That is clearly a problem since the sources in question largely didn't say why he was viewed as far-right. Also the added quotes were not useful at best. It's one thing to use "..." to remove a short section of text. However, in this case it was often a whole paragraph that was removed while implying the quote came from a single sentence. Even then it doesn't explain why he is called far-right.

Yes, the content is in the body with attribution. It doesn't need to go into the lead. That would place undue weight on a single subjective aspect of the person. Springee (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of any better page to hyperlink it to, but as I said I'm open to suggestion. The radical right article includes info about both the radical right post-Trump and conspiracy theories, which are relevant here - but anyway, that's an issue with that page rather than this one. On the quotes, the point about all of the articles referring to Bolduc as far-right still stand, as all of the quotes do show this - even if there's text removed, it's still referring to Bolduc. And on explaining why exactly he's far-right to the reader - that's not really part of our duties. I maintain my position on keeping it in the lead, given the amount of coverage he has received over his far-right views. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

A better option is to use the part I added in the article body and expand that the media describes him as far-right because of his positions on XYZ [sources]. For the reasons TFD points out we shouldn't link to our article since that can result in a false impression of why he is labeled as such. BTW, it is part of our duty to explain why he is far-right if we are going to put it into the first sentence of the lead in wiki-voice. That says that this, more than anything else, is the defining characteristic of the person. Springee (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I still disagree on this being a better option, given it is a defining characteristic. A lot of RSPs that wouldn't usually do coverage on a Senate primary in New Hampshire (The Guardian, BBC etc) have covered Mr Bolduc on the grounds of his extreme views. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It is also a contentious, il-defined label that is being applied in wiki-voice. BLP says err on the side of not doing harm, this is potentially doing harm. It also is a subjective label. Perhaps a compromise would be to have the end of the lead say, "he has been labeled a "far-right" candidate due to XYZ. Then make sure the article body fully supports the claim. If there is a dispute on something like this we need to err on the side of caution. Incidentally part of why this is getting coverage is because several democratically aligned groups have put money behind him presumably in an attempt to give themselves a better chance in the general election. That was a point in several of the articles cited to call him far right. Springee (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Terms such as right wing, far right, exteme right, right-wing extremist, radical right and right-wing populism are used to describe ideologies that don't fall into defined ideologies but are generally perceived as being to the right of mainstream established parties. Unfortunately, there is no consistency in the use of the terms. In scholarly sources, this is usually not a problem, because authors will either explain the defintions they are using or it will be clear from the context.

While most expert sources will differentiate between the terms, news reporters frequently conflate them. That's why expert sources are considered reliable, while political classifications by journalists are not, per WP:NEWSORG#News organizations: analysis in news articles is rarely reliable for statements of fact.

This issue has come up across a number of articles, such as Sweden Democrats and Pamela Geller.

I do not think this is a matter for LABEL, because in some cases there is consensus among experts that the term applies. A group made up of skinheads, Klansmen and neo-Nazis for example would always be described as far right. But there should be some sort of clarification on this in the MOS and perhaps should be discussed at the Village Pump.

TFD (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, who is an "expert" to determine whether to label as "far-right" or "far-left"? Grahaml35 (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Sociologists, political scientists and other social scientists who have published papers and books with academic publishers. For example, when I typed "far right" into Google books, I found The Far Right Today, (Cas Mudde, John Wiley & Sons, 2019.) Mudde has written many books and articles about the Right. In the "Terminology" section of the book, he explains the terminology, beginning with "The ideas and groups at the heart of this book are described with an ever-growing myriad of terms, often used interchangeably, yet without a clear definition of the differences or similarities." Later, he writes, "There is no academic consensus on the correct terms for the broader movement and the various subgroups within it." Furthermore, he points out the term for the broader movement has changed at least four times since WWII. In fact he wrote a well-known paper on this in 1996, called "The war of words defining the extreme right party family," which you can download.

Mudde now uses the term "far right" to refer to politics to the right of mainstream establishment politicians, under which he includes Trump and presumably would include Bolduc. That's fine, because he is clear in his book what he means by the term. No one questions that Trump and Bolduc are perceived as being to the right of George W. Bush, McCain and Romney. But if we call them far right without defining the term, it's not clear what is meant. To me, it means groups like the KKK and American Nazi Party.

So Technical language applies: "Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence. Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do." In this case, we might just say that he is loyal to Trump.

TFD (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe he should not be labeled as "far-right" in the lede for two reasons. 1. He only has one view listed on his article page that is a conspiracy or another "far-right" opinion regarding his statement that "COVID-19 vaccines contain microchips". He has reversed course on his claim that the 2020 US Presidential election was stolen. Just because he may have one opinion that may fall into the category of "far-right" does not mean he is labeled as that. That would be like assuming someone who goes to Lakers is a Lakers fan. 2. The characteristics and descriptors of "far-right" or "far-left" are not spread evenly across Wikipedia. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe the sources are clear and solid to support the far-right descriptor. Also, the onus is on those who wish to remove it, not on content presently in the article. ValarianB (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

ONUS and CONSENSUS are clear that editors wishing to change the article need to get consensus. This is content first added just 3 days ago.[1] Your restoration violates the NOCON policy. Given the content has been challenged the material should remain out until consensus to include has been established. Springee (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

ValarianB, when terms are used in articles, the purpose is to convey information to readers. What information does this convey, IOW, what does far right mean when we add it? TFD (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The same failed arguments have been made in several similar discussions of late, such as Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene#extremist (which IIRC you participated in) and Talk:Lauren_Boebert/Archive_2#RfC_about_adding_"far-right"_to_the_lead. Do you think this current one is going to go any differently for you? ValarianB (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

They didn't fail at Lauren Boebert's page. The closing said it should not be in the opening sentence and it should be an attributed claim vs in Wikivoice. Additionally that closing said that the hyperlink in that article was an issue because some of the aspects of "far-right policies" were not relevant to Boebert. We have a similar issue here. The Boebert consensus is similar to what I have suggested for the lead. At the end of the lead we use an attributed statement that she is described as far-right. We do not link to articles about far-right given they may misrepresent her actual polices. Springee (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe we should have an RFC to gain consensus, like we have done with other far-right US politicians, that it does indeed merit inclusion in Wikivoice due to the overwhelming description in sources and the lack of any sources rebutting. However, I am not sure if some might argue that there could already be a reasonable consensus that this is acceptable. Andre🚐 18:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Far-right is what the sources say. We follow the sources. Neutrality^talk 01:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

First, there isn't consensus to say "far-right" in wiki-voice in the opening sentence of the article. Second, we can say he is described as "far-right" without putting it in wiki-voice which avoids some of the issues editors are raising. Also, as TFD noted here and Animalparty noted at BLPN, our definition of the term can't be assumed to be what the sources intended when they said "far-right". Thus including a link that says "includes white supremacy" in the opening sentence is a clear BLP issue. Springee (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

No, we reflect what the reliable sources say. When there are multiple, high-quality, reliable sources that say X, and in fact zero reliable sources that contravene X, we neither omit X nor water it down. As far as "varying definitions," that is true of virtually any descriptor or adjective. Readers will know what we are talking about via the references, material in the body of the article, and so forth. To be clear, I'd be fine with putting "far-right" somewhere else in the lead - like a second or third sentence rather than the first sentence. But what I oppose—and what is not good style, and is not required by Wiki policy—is strange wording that distances us from the reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 13:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Well so far we don't have any reliable sources for political classification. Are you aware of any? TFD (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

We have many, high-quality mainstream news sources that describe Bolduc's political orientation. Those are already in the article. Citations to political science journals are not required, nor is it reasonable to expect that they would exist for individual candidates. Neutrality^talk 13:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

They are all analyses by journalists which fail rs per News organizations. Even if that weren't policy, common sense tells us that one should use experts for determination of political orientation. TFD (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

TFD's first sentence is incorrect. News organizations says, "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)", and the caveats have largely to do with opinion pieces published in those outlets. All of the cited sources for "far-right" are news reports, not commentary.PRRfan (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

PRRfan is right. These are news articles, not "analyses by journalists." If the citations were to pieces labeled analysis, editorial, column, or op-ed, I might agree with you. If the citations are from low-quality publications, I might also agree with you. (Indeed, I recently removed a "far-right" descriptor in a different biographical article where that descriptor was cited only to Salon.com). That's not the case here. We have essentially uncontested, high-quality sources that give an unqualified descriptor. Neutrality^talk 16:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Neutrality and PRRfan Andre🚐 17:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

TFD is correct. Among the problems here is "far-right" is not defined in context and context matters quite a bit when "far-right" can mean say the right 10% of all federal senators or Mussolini. The label is inherently subjective just as "tall" is subjective. "Tall" in context of NBA players is significantly different vs "tall" in context of F1 drivers. As an additional point, MOS:FIRST says we should not add contextual links that don't directly relate to the definition we are using. Our links to various "far-right" definitions aren't shown to apply to why this person is called "far-right" and thus are a MOS violation. And again, at the end of the day, this is a recently added change to the lead and there is not consensus to keep it. Springee (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

As Budoc has now reversed course and said the 2020 Presidential election was "not stolen" and that Biden is a legitimate president, I have taken a look at your sources of claims he is "far-right". For the Forbes, Guardian , Washington Post , Reuters , and Washington Post again their own claim to him being "far-right" is his denial of the 2020 elections results. As he has reversed course these sources are no longer current and accurate to be used in this matter, even though they are as recent as 6-7 days old. For the Politico and NBC News sources they use "far-right" once in their articles with no explanation of any "far-right" views. As they offer no explanation they should not be used as a crux on a descriptor like this. The Hill offers two reasons for him being "far-right" one of which is the 2020 election claim which again he has reversed course on. Because of the lack of current articles to reflect his new position and that the content of him being "far-right" was added recently and contested I agree with the removal of content. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

A leopard doesn't change their spots that quickly, and right-leaning politicians are well-known for rushing to the center once they make it past the hurdle of their party's primaries, to try to appease a broader range of voters. The Times event takes note of this quick pivot. ValarianB (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

ValarianB That is purely your opinon and the opinion of The Times piece and cannot be attributed that this is a "lie" or an attempt to "appease". We can not purely assume. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

No. Read the news report. It cites 10 examples of Republicans changing their published stances after primaries. PRRfan (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I read it. Other Republicans (and democrats) have done that before. There is no evidence that Bolduc is doing that here and therefore is not a fact. It is purely an opinion of the NYT and you. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Um, no. These candidates changed their positions after the primaries, as represented on their websites (and Bolduc—explicitly, intentionally—in the plain language of his speech), as documented by the NYT and other news orgs. News reporting doesn't get much more straightforwardly factual that this.PRRfan (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I wonder whether we might obtain consensus by taking "far-right" out of Wikivoice and attaching the well-sourced statement that news outlets, in their news reports, call Bolduc far-right. E.g.: "Donald C. Bolduc (born May 8, 1962) is an American conservative politician and retired United States Army brigadier general. Described as "far-right" by newspapers and wire services, he is the Republican nominee in the 2022 United States Senate election in New Hampshire, running against incumbent Democrat Maggie Hassan..." PRRfan (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

There are not any "well-sourced statement" in the lede anymore as they are outdated and lack his reversal. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm circling back to this. Based on the discussion here and the BLPN discussion [2] there is no consensus on adding "far-right" to the lead. I will remove it in the next day or so absent some show that there is a consensus to include it. Springee (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No, you filed a noticeboard report that ultimately failed to gain enough support for your position that it was undue. ValarianB (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you have this backwards. This is a recent addition to the lead. It needs consensus to stay. Springee (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There hasn't been a consensus that I've seen to remove it, and plenty of arguments to keep it. The onus/burden aren't clear in this case since the status quo is that it is in, recent is relative. Andre🚐 15:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

In this section of the Talk page, three editors appear to support removal (Grahaml35, Springee, TFD), while five appear to support keep (Ser!, ValarianB, Andre, Neutrality, and PRRfan). That would seem to be a consensus for keeping it. But I will reiterate my suggestion above: take "far-right" out of Wikivoice and attach the well-sourced statement that news outlets, in their news reports, call Bolduc far-right. E.g.: "Donald C. Bolduc (born May 8, 1962) is an American conservative politician and retired United States Army brigadier general. Described as "far-right" by newspapers and wire services, he is the Republican nominee in the 2022 United States Senate election in New Hampshire, running against incumbent Democrat Maggie Hassan..." PRRfan (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Andre, as a former admin should know that NOCON says that disputed, new content needs consensus to stay, not consensus to be removed. ONUS reinforces that point. 3:5 is not consensus to keep. Additionally, the BLPN discussion had quite a few more editors and was far from any consensus to keep. That said, I think most, myself included, would be fine with your compromise solution that uses attribution. I think it should occur later in the lead rather than before the factual statement that he is a GOP nominee but for the moment I didn't come up with a sentence that read better than your suggestion. Springee (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean, yes, if there were really no consensus the material should be removed, and I am involved in this so I cannot judge the consensus, but I think it's not clear that there isn't a consensus to keep the material, so we could start a new RFC on it. Andre🚐 16:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to start a RfC. ONUS is on those who wish to include the change, not those who wish to keep status quo. That said, I think the attributed option is a good compromise as it addresses the Wikivoice concern voiced by many of the opposes (myself included). It's not ideal as these sort of articles in general would be better if we avoided lazy labels and instead described positions/policies/actions. Springee (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Like you said, I am fine with the compromise, let's see what others think and have to say. Andre🚐 16:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The onus is on the side of removal, this is not a debatable point. As for the "compromise", what I would be concerned about is this users seeing this as a springboard (pun unintended) to force similar watered-down attributions to similar articles. We already went through lengthy debates on Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene and likely others I cannot immediately recall. When spares are spades, and reliable news sources call them spades in abundance, then we have no need to couch their spadeness in measured language. ValarianB (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please review NOCON, In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Additionally, the BLPN discussion confirmed there was no consensus for the text as it currently exists. Springee (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to further the NOCON point, a sub-point of the one above is: In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. Springee (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to start an RfC, then. It will probably go as well for you as MTG's did. ValarianB (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Does this mean you at least read NOCON and understand what the policy says we should do in this case? Are you arguing that NOCON is wrong? Are you suggesting I was involved with the MTG discussion? Which MTG discussion are you thinking of? I don't think I've participated in any of that article's RfCs. Springee (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Curious that as we discuss far-right labels here, a new account tries to remove it from Boebert's page 2 minutes after creation. ValarianB (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It appears the lead doesn't follow a RfC closing from earlier this year. "far-right"_to_the_lead Springee (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You may have missed that it was added by an account with less than 20 edits just 4 days ago.[3] Springee (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

With Springee's approbation, at least, I'm going to be bold and move "far-right" out of Wikivoice, and append this to the first graf: "His political stances have been described as 'far-right' by newspapers and wire services" with cites. PRRfan (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I like the changes you made. Springee (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

lol, someone just threw away the nuance and reverted to "is a far-right politician". Sigh. Gotta persuade those last few undecideds now that Bolduc is up in the polls less than a week out.2600:6C5E:107F:701:88B3:4C18:F390:5B24 (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Bolduc is not advocating nativist politics, which is the go-to meaning in academic circles (in which circles I travel) for the "far-right" label in the U.S., nor authoritarianism for that matter. Moreover, he does not meet any of the descriptions of "far-right politics" in the United States which are discussed on the "far-right politics" page here on Wikipedia. (Contrast him, for example, with Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Doug Mastriano, who have advocated such politics and who generally meet those criteria.) Labeling Bolduc as such can be interpreted as a blatantly political maneuver by left-wing editors on Wikipedia, imposed now that he is getting closer to his opponent in the polls. For these reasons, I strongly support at the very least reverting to saying something along the lines of "papers have called him 'far-right.'"

In my view, however, the undeniably correct approach would be to spell out specifics as is done on Ron Johnson's (R-WI) page. Johnson's page seems to me the correct model to emulate here.

I ask others more familiar with Wikipedia editing processes to please advise. Can I make the above edit unilaterally? (It would indeed appear that someone else reverted the "far-right" label unilaterally.) But I do wish to have consensus on this. Thanks in advance. Hendr243 (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You know what, I just read through all of the above. Wikipedia editors had an extended conversation about this, and your (@PRRfan) edit stood for a month before some person changed it unilaterally (just yesterday!), evidently without reading through any of the discussion on this page. I'm re-adding your nuanced wording, which I thought was well done. Hendr243 (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I've moved the sentence up from the second intro graf, which is all about Bolduc's election-fraud positions, to the more general first intro graf. PRRfan (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Uwieshu, your question[4] about the last sentence of the first paragraph probably belongs in this talk section. PRRfan, do you think it would make more sense to move the sentence from the last sentence of the first paragraph to the first sentence of the second paragraph? There it might serve as a topic sentence for that paragraph. Springee (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Springee, that makes a lot of sense. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Campaign donations/support from Democrats

Is it worth mentioning that there are reports that the Democratic Party supported him to improve Hassan's chances to win this election? See: https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-for-maga-republicans-new-hampshire-republicans-don-bolduc-chuck-morse-maggie-hassan-11662759677 --Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It might be. It's definitely included on similar candidate pages, e.g. Doug Mastriano. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022

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.

---

The profile is highly biased almost as if it is written by a Hassan staffer Jose Lipton (talk) 04:35, 22 October 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. Cannolis (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Every source you used save for The Hill has a left-to-far left wing bias. For a month or so his lede was to this effect: "Bolduc has been refered to as far-right due to his positions" which is still leading and highly suspect but at least it isn't worded as absolute fact. How the lede is now is absurd. "Bolduc is an American far-right politician" ..dubious, scurrilous, deceptive. Sigh. 68.191.71.225 (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Give WP:NPOV a read before complaining. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Nope. WP:RSP Andre🚐 03:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Both are relevant in this case since they're complaining about it "not being neutral" but also that the sources are "left-to-far left wing" ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yeah I was noping to them, not you, BlazeWolf. Andre🚐 03:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Warning to Andrevan and BlazeWolf - do not delete comments that are not yours on the talk page. This goes against wiki policy. Should you continue to do so you will be banned. 2600:6C5E:107F:701:88B3:4C18:F390:5B24 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. WP:TPNO WP:NPA. Usage of the talk page as a forum or personal attacks can and will be removed. Andre🚐 20:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

litter boxes

Bolduc's decision to join other Republicans in spreading the litter-box lie is noteworthy both as part of the national effort to spread this particular falsehood and as part of his own general willingness to spread falsehoods. PRRfan (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for restoring that. Anything that looks like whitewashing should be avoided. We document what multiple RS say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

What one person sees as white washing others can see as Undue, NOTNEWS, Moonie crap that clutters articles. Blackwashing also should be avoided. The problem with this whole littler box thing is the context of the original comment is lost. Does the person literally think schools are pulling out litter boxes or perhaps they are commenting on the idea that schools are going off the deep end to accommodate self identifying people or something else. In a sense this is selective quoting. Yes, it's being done by sources vs editor but it still presents a weight problem and is why RECENT is a problem in many articles. Springee (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of properly sourced negative content is not "blackwashing." It is part of our NPOV duty. We don't write hagiographies here. More context? Go for it. Whatever the case, he pushes nonsense and RS document he does that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It is when you don't includes the context in which the statements were made (does he literally believe this or is it a rhetorical statement used to make a point), we don't consider if the claim has any lasting significance and we don't consider if the comment is just the typical political sniping made by news sources with a bias shortly before an election. Impartial matters here even in cases when we might not like the candidates in question. Springee (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Springee, your point about quotations is well-taken—but it's pretty clear from the 90-second audio clip that Bolduc is repeating these lies as fact and not, say, quoting them as hyperbole. “I wish I was making it up,” he says on the clip. PRRfan (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I must agree with PPRfan and Valjean. Andre🚐 18:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Per my recent edit, at least two school districts in the state (including the one he directly accused) have released statements refuting his claims. Even if Bolduc's words were intended to be sarcastic or hyperbolic, school districts seem to be taking them seriously. --Woko Sapien (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist category

The addition of the conspiracy theorist category to this article violates WP:BLPCAT. The sourcing in this article doesn't support that Bolduc is, himself a conspiracy theorist even if he is accused of spreading some conspiracies. Previous BLPN discussions have noted one is not the same as the other (example [Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive331#Ann Coulter and a conspiracy theorist CAT tag]. Even Andrew Wakefield wasn't considered a conspiracy theorist despite his vaccine related claims[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive330#Category: British conspiracy theorists / Andrew Wakefield]. BLPCAT makes it clear that inclusion in a category is the same as saying a person is the thing in wikivoice. In particular the BLP section says, "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). " As the category violates BLP I am removing the recently added category from the article. Springee (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)