Talk:Lauren Boebert/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Is there some problem with the Pending Changes restrictions in place, or am I just missing something?

Doug Weller recently placed Pending Changes protection on this article, and per the article history anyone who is autoconfirmed should have their edits confirmed automatically. However, my most recent edit went through the pending changes process, even though I have most definitely been autoconfirmed. Is this an error, or an I missing something? Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If any edits needing review are ahead of your edit, then your edit can't be "go live" until those earlier edits are OK'd. See the the table at WP:Protection policy. EEng 01:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Philotimo is a confirmed sockpuppet

Sockpuppet investigation[1]. Disregard their comments and revert their edits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Deception! And that sock-puppet investigation page had me giggling. "On a biweekly basis, I visit a friend working at the IP. During lunch, we discussed Wikipedia and Team Novo Nordisk, he’s diabetic... Anyway he made the contributions." is so ludicrous that it must be commended. KidAd (💬💬) 15:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Lauren Boebert encourages her servers to openly carry firearms inside her restaurant in Rifle, Colorado?

• Reviewed: Second qpq of two from Template:Did you know nominations/Helmsley Building

Created by Muboshgu (talk) and KidAd (talk). Nominated by Muboshgu (talk) at 20:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC).

• Good to go. Long enough and new enough. The article is generally within policy with regards to referencing and neutrality. No copyvio info found. Hook found in the article and is verified. QPQ is in order. Note that because the subject is running in a general election, the hook is not supposed to run within 30 days before the election (3 November 2020), per DYK rules. HaEr48 (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• It seems impossible to believe there isn't better hook material latent in this subject. I suggest we wait a while while the article develops and see if any new bright ideas come to mind. EEng 05:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  Feel free to suggest an alternative. To me, the hook is interesting enough and more so than the average DYK hook (of course, this is subjective), so I see no reason to delay the nomination. But of course will be happy to review other hook suggestions! HaEr48 (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  The current hook is completely adequate, but with a gun-toting QAnon babe in the mix, why settle for mere adequacy? I'm just suggesting that promotion wait a few weeks. Who knows? Someone's gun might go off by accident at the salad bar, thus giving new meaning to the expression "Eat lead!". EEng 20:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Politician vs. Political candidate

@KidAd: I've never understood a political candidate to be a politician. That's why we have a political candidate Infobox. Can you point to a policy (not a WP article like you did before) that supports that position? --Kbabej (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Kbabej, it's not Wiki policy, but our article on politician starts: A politician is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking an office in government. Once you ask people to vote for you, you're a politician. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu Then what would the candidate Infobox be for? --Kbabej (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I used the "officeholder" infobox for candidates and was corrected several times. I have come to understand that the "politician" infobox is used because it is more general, while the "officeholder" infobox is used for individuals who have been elected/nominated to officer. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, candidates are grouped into the "politician" category for the purpose of determining notability. If this page were nominated for deletion, it would likely be judged using the framework of WP:NPOL. KidAd (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Kbabej, Template:Infobox candidate redirects to Template:Infobox officeholder. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

QAnon

I think that the QAnon info would be more appropriately placed under the Politics section instead of the Personal Life section.Writethisway (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Clarification: I should have said under the Politics subheading within the Career section.Writethisway (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Through her own Twitter account she says that she's not a supporter how is that not accepted. This section should be removed it clearly is a lie which Wikipedia is pushing. Also she never said she supported it by her own words she said she sympathized with it which is not the same thing. 2600:1702:2700:E880:C191:5783:9F51:BF76 (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable sourced because it is WP:USERGENERATED. KidAd (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone's Twitter account isn't considered a reliable source for their own beliefs and opinions? That seems off to me. AKT0001 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It's reliable for the fact that the person said something, but we really need secondary sources to compare such a statement with the person's other statements etc. In this case the twit (or tweet or whatever this nonsense is called) is open to interpretation. It's just sentence fragments so it's hard to know what it means, and certainly we are in no position to figure that out. EEng 17:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable independent secondary sources. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Even Fox News says it.

Real-world sources describe her thus. It's not our problem to fix. Guy (help!) 09:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the original QAnon mention in the lede, which was removed in this edit. KidAd (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

QAnon Mention in Lede

JzG, EEng, Muboshgu, Devonian Wombat, CharlesShirley It appears that there is a dispute regarding the lede. I believe that including the sentence "Boebert has expressed support for QAnon, a far-right conspiracy theory" is neutral, reliably-sourced, and WP:DUE. Open to hear other opinions. KidAd (talk)

Obviously belongs in the lead. It's the most prominent thing about her other than her uncanny resemblance to Sarah Palin. EEng 01:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm never going to be able to unsee the similarity. Thanks. KidAd (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

They both affect that hips-forward posture. EEng 04:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Plus nobody's ever seen them together. MORE THAN A COINCIDENCE? EEng 08:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

EEng I get your joke. I appreciate your humor. As my mother used to say back in the 1960s, "Ha. Ha. You made a funny." She used to say that to my childish humor. I applaud your childish attempts at humor. Very well done, indeed! But unfortunately you have expressed a conspiracy theory and in line with current Wikipedia practice we must now label you a "conspiracy theorist" for you remainder of your time as an editor on Wikipedia. - CharlesShirley (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That would make sense if there was any chance of mistaking my post for serious. Your mother sounds like a patient woman who attempted to help you with your sense of humor, but from the evidence she may have failed. EEng 18:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I made it clear, to the vast majority of people, that I attempt to laugh at your joke. I tried to find it funny. I made it clear, to intelligent people, that I did not take it seriously. If you took my comment seriously then you seem to be dull. - CharlesShirley (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's avoid name-calling and keep this discussion WP:CIVIL. KidAd (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It's therapeutic for him so I don't mind. EEng 23:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Concur with EEng, her association with QAnon is clearly one of the most, if not the most notable thing about her. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I do not concur with the comments expressed above. She defeated a sitting U.S. Congressman in a Republican primary, that is what she is most well-known for. It is the reason that an article was written about her. Also, she has backed off her previous support for the QAnon. Yes, her comments are inconsistent and illogical, but that fact, that you all concede, makes it harder to put a definitive statement in the opening paragraph. Yes, she has expressed support and she has backed off that support, so the sentence above is NOT neutral. It is a false statement. It doesn't tell the whole story, just one side of the story. It should not be added until it is written in a neutral manner. It should not be added until it indicates the truth, not just a half-truth. There is zero consensus to put the sentence back in. (BTW, I was the anon IP editor that put it back it. I just forgot to login.)CharlesShirley (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that she's unable (or unwilling?) to express herself coherently on the subject doesn't put it off-limits for the lead. Stop edit-warring. Consensus is against you. EEng 14:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

EEng The only edit warring going on is by you. I have objected to the additon of the false statement in the lead paragraph and you keep putting it back in before the discussion ends. You editing is the exact definition of edit warring. Please stop. - CharlesShirley (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

[7]. EEng 18:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Every mainstream news source I've seen mentioned it in the lead of their coverage of the election. Of course it belongs in the lead. It's what makes her vioctory over a very right-wing Trump-endorsed candidate significant. Guy (help!) 14:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  No. That statement is not true. The coverage on election night and the morning after was a focus on her defeating a sitting Congressman in a primary. Her defeat of a sitting U.S. Congressman is what makes her election significant. It is very, very rare that a unknown candidate defeats a well funded sitting Congressman and she did that. So slow that roll. The QAnon discussion did come until later. Also, you, Guy, did not respond to the fact that the sentence in the lead is a false statement. She has not "expressed support". The London Guardian has pointed out that she is not a follower. She has just stated that she wishes it is true. That is not an expression of support. It is a vague wish that it might be true. She did not get elected as a proponent of QAnon. The sentence that you want to add to the lead is false. - CharlesShirley (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  The significance of believing in conspiracy theories is that they are delusions indicative of irrational thinking. Whether someone believes them to be true, or merely hopes they are true, matters very little; a willingness to believe they even might be true evinces a disconnection from reality. Having said that, I think the text [8]

  Boebert has said about QAnon, a far-right conspiracy theory, "I hope that this is real because it only means America is getting stronger and better".

  is appropriate and I suggest we go with that. (It's very much like something I tried earlier, I think.) EEng 17:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with EEng, Guy, Devonian Wombat, and KidAd - I think the text is fairly-stated, reliably-sourced, and WP:DUE. She has garnered attention for defeating an incumbent in a primary, and giving airtime to bizarre conspiracy theories. Both are rather exceptional, and both are properly noted in the article and the lead section. Neutrality^talk 15:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don’t support the idea of inserting a clunky quote in the lede. What about something like “During her campaign, Boebert made statements in support of QAnon, a far-right conspiracy theory”? KidAd (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  No, the opening paragraph completely violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view and WP:LIVE. In the first sentence, Boebert is describes as a "conspiracy theorist" and then later in the final sentence of the opening paragraph it says she "expresses support" for a conspiracy theory. Why is there a need to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" twice in the first paragraph. It is not neutral. It is redundant, unnecessary and unfair. There is no reason for it being repeated over and over. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  First sentence + later in lead + article body – key points will show up in exactly those three places. EEng 20:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to describe things as they are. Time and time again, sources clearly refer to Boebert's support of far-right conspiracy theories. KidAd (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  What you just said is correct, but you missed my point entirely. It is a problem to repeat information over and over again. And the paragraph, as was once written, repeated the phrase "conspiracy theory" for no reason. - CharlesShirley (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  At the risk of repeating information over and over again: First sentence + later in lead + article body – key points will show up in exactly those three places. EEng 20:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  As a supporter of a far-right conspiracy theory, she is a conspiracy theorist. This is not repetition, but a complete and accurate description as stated by reliable sources. Not very controversial. KidAd (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  At the risk of repeating information over and ... Oh wait, it's you. EEng 20:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'd be happy with "statements in support of". EEng 20:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. "Boebert has made statements in support of QAnon, a far-right conspiracy theory." KidAd (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Taking stock

• For a while the lead's said Boebert had expressed support of QAnon, a far-right conspiracy theory and I just now added though she later said, "I'm not a follower" of QAnon. Are we all cool with that? EEng 17:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: the CBS reference you use states QAnon is a conspiracy theory, not far-right. I think you should drop far-right or at least provide more references for that assertion. It's debatable among reliable sources at the moment so the simplest thing to do, in my opinion, would be just say 'conspiracy theory' and keep the reference as is. Philotimo (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The far-right label is not taken from the CBS reference. It is taken directly from the QAnon definition. KidAd (💬💬) 01:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

What you're arguing for is WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We must provide reliable sources for an assertion where the assertion is made. Philotimo (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

If you'd like to argue that QAnon is not far-right, please do it somewhere else. KidAd (💬💬) 01:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Classic straw man. Philotimo (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Impressive. Care to explain that one? KidAd (💬💬) 01:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Philitimo is correct that we can't use our own QA article as a source, explicitly or implicitly. It shouldn't be hard to find multiple RSs characterizing QA appropriately. EEng 05:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. far-right, far-right, far-right, far-right, far-right, far-right. Also..."Q supporter", "q-supporting candidate", "Q sympathizer", and "Supports QAnon". I can't for the life of me understand why people are going to bat for this lunatic. KidAd (💬💬) 18:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you KidAd for making your bias against the subject perfectly clear. You just called her a "lunatic". This is your opinion. It was written by you. It indicates how you feel about the subject of the article. It is now clear that you have a deep, personal bias against her and it could be one reason why it is difficult for you to follow the Wikipedia rules, as it concerns this article, and will not allow any information in the article that you personally don't like, even though that information is reliably sourced, neutrally presented, and is relevant to the article such as your constant removal of the fact that Boebert describes herself as the antidote to the squad or your the fact that you keep jamming her into the "conspiracy theorist" category even though she does not fit into the rules set out for that category. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

We have guidelines and stuff for what goes into articles, but editors don't shed their common sense when they log in (most of them, anyway) so let's stay real. "Lunatic" may be a bit harsh, but "ignorantly irrational bordering on delusional" is about right. EEng 21:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Great detective work. Seeing as I don't live/vote in Colorado's 3rd congressional district, my personal opinion and $2.50 will get me a cup of coffee. The only reason the "antidote to the squad" material was cut is because it says "During her campaign, Boebert criticized Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other members of "The Squad", positioning herself as a conservative alternative to Ocasio-Cortez" directly before. Those statements mean the same thing, so no need for redundancy. KidAd (💬💬) 19:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The words "antidote" and "conservative alternative" are not the same thing, by any stretch of the imagination. First of all, her wording is actually somewhat funny. The two have two different connotations and you know it. Also, there is a long history of Wikipedia of letting the subject talk for themselves every once in a while, as long as it is not a harangue. The word "antidote" is not a rant or harangue. It is just three words. You just don't like it. It is as simple as that. You don't like the subject, you have a bias against the subject, and you want to whitewash the article of anything that might make her look human or likeable. You want her to look like a "lunatic", which is your word. It seems to be your goal for the article. You can't seem to let the article present the subject in a neutral manner. There absolutely no way "antidote" and "conservative alternative" are redundant. They do not mean the same thing. At all. That claim, by you, is hilarious on its face. I have never heard Ted Cruz say, "Please: don't call me 'conservative'! Please call me 'the antidote'". And you can replace Cruz's name with hundreds of conservatives and my point is the same. You don't have a good reason to remove a reliably sourced, neutrally presented piece of information. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop the WP:WIKILAWYERING. The two statements are similar enough to read poorly in the same area. If you believe that Boebert hasn't gotten enough of a chance to speak on her own page, remember that there is a direct link to her official campaign website, where she has the freedom and flexibility to label herself whatever she wants. And as for the bad-faith attack that I'm dedicating my time to making Lauren Boebert appear like a "lunatic", she doesn't need any help from me in that department. KidAd (💬💬) 19:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not bad faith to point out that you are biased and you clearly dislike the subject of the article. It is also not bad faith to point out that it is possible that your defense of whitewashing the article is based upon your avowed biased against the subject of the article. And of course until now I have not pointed out that this talk page is not about discussing your personal political opinions, but you keep making your personal attacks on the subject and should stop it. There is no place for the non-neutral comments in the article and Wikipedia makes it very clear that you are not make the same political comments and personal attacks on the talk page. That is not what this page is for and Jimbo has made it very clear that Wikipedia editors like you need to keep your personal opinions, especially if they are personal attacks like yours, to yourself and not put them in the articles or in the talk pages like you have done here. Please stop it. Until you have explained how "antidote" and "conservative alternative" have the same meaning I will restored the reliably sourced, neutrally presented, relevant information back in the article. - CharlesShirley (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Whitewashing is the opposite of what I'm doing. Whitewashing would be removing all reliably-sourced content from the article because it reflects poorly on the article's subject. That is what you aim to do, and you won't get very far without consensus. As I already pointed out, I am entitled to my opinions. Abiding by WP:NPOV means remaining neutral despite them. Don't pretend that your strident support of scrubbing negative material from the article doesn't reveal your bias. KidAd (💬💬) 00:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, KidAd, for your bad faith attack on my motives. My addition is a neutral presented, reliably sourced, relevant piece of info that is not equivalent to what you have written. Also, just for your information you don't get to decide what it consensus. Your opinion allow does not make a consensus. That's a fact. You have not provided a reason for the information to be excluded. You have a clear bias, you engage in personal attacks on the talk page about the subject of the article. Your editing is not neutral. It is outgrowth of the bias you have shown to all of the editors by calling the subject of the article derogatory names. You need to stop engaging in personal attacks on the subject of the article. It only makes your bias clear for everyone. - CharlesShirley (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

More WP:WIKILAWYERING. I never claimed the authority to dictate consensus. Per WP:CONS Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns. That means, if you want to include a redundant statement, go right ahead and gain consensus. If you want to scrub the page of negative information, reverse the consensus already established. Arguing with me does nothing but waste time. Try toning it down and start pinging some others. KidAd (💬💬) 00:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing to tone down. You are the person that has been engaging in personal attacks on the subject of the article. You are the one that needs to tone it down. Also, you made a false statement in your lecture above. You once again stated that "antidote" is the same as "conservative alternative". They are not the same and just saying that over falsehood over and over again does not make it true. Pleas provide you explanation of how "antidote" which is an analogy and "conservative alternative" which is a descriptive phrase are the same. They aren't. I am waiting for your explanation. As far as I can tell you don't have consensus to keep the information out of the article. It is just you and all you are doing is attacking the subject of the article personally and calling her names. And you are making the absurd claim that "antidote" and "conservative alternative" have the same meaning. And you make that absurd claim without providing any type of explanation of how they are equivalent. And you know why you aren't providing a explanation because you can't, because they are not the same. You don't have consensus on your side. You have made it clear with your personal attacks on the subject of the article that you possess a bias against her and you decided to remove reliably sourced, neutrally presented, relevant information about the subject of the article. Please tone it down with your personal attacks and your bad faith comments. I have a legitimate concern and you are attacking the subject of the article and stonewalling any kind of discussion. Pleas stop calling the subject of the article derogatory names. There has been tons of Wikipedia administrative time spent on this type of personal attacks and it has been made clear that an editor like you can't make the personal attacks in the article itself or on the talk page like you did above. Please stop. Tone it down and look to making an effort to incorporating my legitimate concerns. You don't seem to be making any effort to see or hear my concerns. I asked you not to attack the subject of the article but instead of stopping you did it again. Please stop. - CharlesShirley (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

First off, @KidAd and CharlesShirley: I think both of you, with respect, need to take a moment and reevaluate your actions on here; you're both heading for an edit war. I kindly suggest either move on from Boebert, or act reasonable and cut out the personal attacks. Please consider WP:UNCIVIL since this is getting there. I've also noticed both of your edits before, I believe this is our first discussion though, and I've found y'all to be decent actors and relatively impartial. If emotion has gotten the best of you on here, I get it... I'm not a fan of our country's politics broadly speaking, maybe take a break from this page? I'd like to note, KidAd, you committed a straw man when ignoring my legitimate concern about reliable sourcing by deflecting and then suggesting I'd like to discuss whether or not QAnon is far-right. In addition to that, you committed a formal fallacy by stating that your personal opinion on Boebert isn't significant because you don't live in CO–3rd, which is untrue 1.) it's a federal race so it indirectly impacts all of us 2.) Wikipedia articles do change opinions 3.) you're actively editing this article which unequivocally has an impact on swaying people's votes. Please be real about your impact, and this page's impact on an election. That's why balance is so important, and why using pejorative terms about people you're editing on is incredibly counterproductive. I also think it's unfair to label CharlesShirley's statements as just WP:WIKILAWYERING. That's deflection. CharlesShirley, I do think you're being incredibly unfair to KidAd's motives here, and it's quite unbecoming. It's no way to argue your case successfully by slinging accusations, and your responses are quite excessive to say the least, especially for a one sentence dispute with KidAd. I mean don't y'all have something better to do than argue over one sentence in the middle of an article?

As a compromise, I'd suggest keeping CharlesShirley's edit out about the Squad, replacing the CBS reference with at least two new reliable sources as listed above by KidAd that describe QAnon as far-right, and remove conspiracy theorist from the lede and leave it removed from its category listing. If y'all agree to this, barring any potential objections from @EEng: then let's do it and end this :) Philotimo (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I can live with that compromise. - CharlesShirley (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds alright to me. KidAd (💬💬) 17:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Great, I'll make the agreed upon tweaks over the next couple of days when I'm free. Philotimo (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done KidAd (💬💬) 23:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist category

There is an attempt to place Lauren Boebert's article in the category: conspiracy theorists. But there is a problem with that. The terms of the conspiracy theorist category require that the person's article make it clear that the subject of the article must be focused on promoting the whatever the underlying conspiracy theory is, which of course Boebert is not doing. The wording the terms are as follows: Articles related to conspiracy theorists. For purposes of article inclusion, this category specifically only includes articles where the subject is mentioned in their article as actively promoting one of the conspiracy theories listed in the articles under Category:Conspiracy theories. For example, the article Area 51 appears under Category:Conspiracy theories (C:CT), so anyone who actively promotes conspiracy theories mentioned in that article would be classified here as a Conspiracy theorist. Theories without corresponding C:CT articles will not count for inclusion here. You can review that wording here: Terms of Conspiracy Theorists categories. So after reading those very clear terms it is clear that Boebert doesn't fit into the terms of that category. - CharlesShirley (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Boebert’s infamous “I hope this is real” comment is certainly a statement of support. The definition of “support” — broadly — is “to promote the interests or cause of [something].” Boebert has made statements in support of conspiracy theories, and she should be categorized/labeled duly. KidAd (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Not good enough. She isn't specifically named in the article as a "promoter" and she is has said, and our article says, that she is not a follower. She is not "actively promoting" the QAnon conspiracy. She doesn't meet the requirements of the category. - CharlesShirley (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"Earlier this year, Boebert said in an interview that she was 'very familiar' with the QAnon conspiracy theory, but she stopped just short of saying she was a follower. However, she did say: 'Everything that I’ve heard of Q, I hope that this is real because it only means that America is getting stronger and better, and people are returning to conservative values.' https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/01/who-is-lauren-boebert-republican-primary-qanon-trump -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to communicate to us by pasting in a quote already in the article. EEng 23:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Having conspiracy theorist is the lede is incredibly WP:UNDUE when it's debatable whether she is or isn't one based on reliable sources. Ledes are supposed to hold and summarize the most known and clear realities present. Philotimo (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. Almost every source about her mentions her support of conspiracy theories. This is both DUE and neutral. KidAd (💬💬) 23:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No, when Boebert stated: "I was very vague in what I said before. I’m not into conspiracies. I’m into freedom and the Constitution of the United States of America. I’m not a follower [of QAnon].” and reliable sources note her reluctance to get behind it, you're arguing for an WP:UNDUE position. By stating it in the lede you're arguing that beyond a responsible doubt she is a conspiracy theorist, which runs contrary to the nuance present in reliable sources. It takes at least a sentence to explain the nuances. By just having this debate, it's obviously why conspiracy theory shouldn't be there, because it's debatable and nuanced as we're discussing now. More room is needed to explain this to readers. Philotimo (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. Reliable sources say she is a supporter of conspiracy theories. She says she is not. That's WP:RS vs. WP:SELFSOURCE. KidAd (💬💬) 23:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No, they don't outright call Boebert a conspiracy theorist, they note she's supported elements of QAnon, which is a conspiracy theory, but that she isn't a full-fledged supporter. There is important nuance here. The Guardian, NYT, et al. (left-of-center publications) have noted this and don't directly label her a conspiracy theorist and obviously Fox (right-of-center) doesn't either. Just because you believe in elements of something, doesn't make you it necessarily. It's a compete package and I don't see floods of 'Boebert is a conspiracy theorist' (which is definite) stated in reliable sources. Philotimo (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

A person who supports conspiracy theories is a conspiracy theorist. KidAd (💬💬) 00:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No, because as they note, Boebert only believes in elements of QAnon, reliable sources don't definitely state she's a conspiracy theorist. Also, by your own logic, we should say conspiracy theorist on the ledes of people like Jim Inhofe, who are notorious for denying climate change, which in Inhofe's case is arguably less nuanced than Boebert since he don't at all deny he believes in or at least states that climate change is a hoax. Philotimo (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

She doesn't even say what tiny parts of QAnon that she believes in. Can any of the editors who keep demanding that the phrase "conspiracy theorist" tell us what parts of QAnon she believes in? Can you? She even says that she does not follow QAnon. Your response to this fact is that because she says she does not follow is not important, but I haven't heard why who statement that she isn't a follower isn't important. There is no substance behind that position. I agree with Philotimo there is no support for the phrase "conspiracy theorist" in the lede, just simply none. - CharlesShirley (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Food poisoning incident

Well-sourced material based on public-interest documents. It's been removed. Please discuss why?

There is a primary source found at https://issuu.com/randyessex/docs/rifle_rodeo_06.05.2017_outbreak_rep

Plus coverage from Post-Independent.com. This website relates to (merged) newspapers that have been continually published for more than 100 years. This is based on very straight reporting. https://www.postindependent.com/news/local/editorial-county-dodged-a-bullet-on-food-poisoning/

The story is repeated currently (7/8/20) by Daily Beast. https://www.thedailybeast.com/qanon-curious-house-candidate-lauren-boebert-of-colorado-gave-her-customers-diarrhea?ref=home

There are, or will be, additional sources, I suppose 2600:1702:39A0:3720:6974:72D1:28A9:D6EF (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

While there's huge potential for amusement here, I'm afraid I don't see how, for now, this can possibly be appropriate for inclusion in the article, unless and until there's reporting laying out facts which tell the reader something about Boebert herself – for example, if sources show that this is part of a pattern of incidents. Obviously in that case it might tie in with her insistence on staying open to the detriment of public health during the current pandemic. (I should say I can't see the Daily Beast thing so maybe there's something in there – please quote if so.) EEng 15:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This is what I get for not checking the talk for a few days. I will take another look at this tomorrow. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 06:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

-- I added the information about the mass food poisoning incident. It is pertinent to Boebert's political ideology that government regulations on businesses have little purpose other than interfering with proprietor's rights and the open market. It also reinforces that these beliefs have real-world impacts on the health and safety of people. Indeed, she manifested this ideology again when defied the Garfield County Health Department's pandemic regulations by staying open. Boebert's track record of disobeying laws and regulations as a business owner is pertinent because it has already had significant negative impacts on large numbers of people in her jurisdiction. Thus I am adding the section about mass food poisoning back into the article because it shows her pattern of behavior and how it can affect people. Afoxland (talk) afoxland —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Should the information about Boebert's mass food poisoning incident be included in this article along with the primary source it is based on: the report from the Garfield County Health Department?Afoxland (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• No, and it's completely irresponsible for you to open an RfC like this without prior discussion. Your statements above i,e,

  It is pertinent to Boebert's political ideology that government regulations on businesses have little purpose other than interfering with proprietor's rights and the open market. It also reinforces that these beliefs have real-world impacts on the health and safety of people. Indeed, she manifested this ideology again when defied the Garfield County Health Department's pandemic regulations by staying open.

are classic WP:SYNTH and precisely the reason this stuff does not belong in the article, unless and until reliable sources make such a connection. EEng 23:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Eeng: When it became clear the deleting editor and I were not going to agree, so it was appropriate to open a RFC to head off a pointless edit war. Why is a Garfield County Health Department official report on the incident (the county in which her restaurant is located) not "a reliable source"? It is a primary source document. Please explain. --Afoxland Afoxland (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above. You said the incident relates to Boebert's political ideology and shows that her beliefs have real-world impacts etc etc etc and that it's a pattern of behavior. Does the Garfield Country Health Department report from 2017 explain all that? If not then you're engaging in WP:SYNTH.

RfCs are for issues that have been well-ventilated with still no consensus. You posted a single comment in this thread and then instantly opened an RfC. By doing so you've wasted a huge amount of editor time. EEng 02:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• TBH I don't think it matters whether it's politically relevant. This person did a thing. The thing was notable enough to show up in reliable news sources. So, we should include it, unless there's a good reason to not include it. Loki (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Everything is either included or not according to judgment, not included by default unless there's some explicit reason to keep it out. I wouldn't be surprised if there's coverage of a zoning variance she applied for for an in-ground swimming pool, but we wouldn't include that either. EEng 20:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Most reliable sources haven't covered it, and that's despite significant focus on Boebert. Since most of them aren't covering it, I lean against it right now. I'm open to changing my view if this develops more though. Philotimo (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• No, for now. General search results for lauren boebert food poisoning are surprisingly sparse, mostly from left- or left-leaning sources in what amounts to opposition research (and I say this as someone who would absolutely be in opposition to her!). Such charges certainly can make it to the mainstream, and if we get coverage in CNN, Denver Post, etc., if it becomes an issue in the campaign, then of course we could and should cover it. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• No. It is not really notable. - CharlesShirley (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  For the record, notability is not the test for article content -- see WP:NNC. EEng 15:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, Good Lord! Yes, you are right. I was just using the word in its every day meaning. I was not using it as part of Wikipedia talk. Do you have to be a total geek? I guess that catch will get you in the Wikipedia Hall of Fame. I was not even referring to notability for an individual. I was just using the word. So, just to be obnoxious like you: For the record, notable is a word in the English language. The word notable existed long before Wikipedia existed. The word notable still has its original meaning. Please do not confuse the two things. If you start to confuse Wikipedia terms with ordinary words of the English language then you should think long and hard about taking a break from Wikipedia. Goodness sakes alive. - CharlesShirley (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• that catch will get you in the Wikipedia Hall of Fame – Your preoccupation with the idea that your fellow editors crave recognition from the Washington Post, some "Wikipedia Hall of Fame", and other random figments of your imagination is quite weird.
• The word notable still has its original meaning – Not on a WP talk page it doesn't. For the record, a term of art is a word or phrase that has special meaning within a particular realm of endeavor. So, for example, on WP notable is a term of art, so that when used in project space it doesn't mean 'notable' but rather WP:NOTABLE.
• Do you have to be a total geek? – No, actually, I don't; I can turn it on and off at will. I turned it on in this case because, see, I've been around the block a few more times than you, and confusion about the scope of WP's concept of notability (there's that term of art again) is pervasive. I activated my inner geek, therefore, in order to point out the WP:NCC distinction for the benefit of any impressionable minds that might wander by. Whether it would benefit you in particular was of no concern to me (which is what for the record means, for the record).

EEng 02:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow. That was exhausting, embarrassing (for you), and not the least bit informative. - CharlesShirley (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Whatever helps you sleep at night. EEng

Boebert has called herself the antidote to The Squad.

Boebert in a recent article in the Grand Junction newspaper called herself "the antidote to the squad". I have placed that quote in the article. And I provided a reliable source for it. An editor keeps removing this fact. The quote of Boebert concerning how she sees herself in relation to the squad is important and relevant. The other editor just removes it without discussion or comment. Also, the same editor keeps removing a quote from a political science professor at the University of Denver named Seth Masket who has commented directly on Boebert's strategy in terms of AOC and the rest. This is a much better source than the wording used. The wording used refused to acknowledge that Boebert used her attacks at AOC to motive Republican voters to the polls. This is an important fact that the other editor keeps removing and refusing to discuss or explain. Also Boebert recently stated that she does not believe that AOC has been property challenged and this is another important fact about the her strategy that the other editor keeps removing without any discussion or comment. - CharlesShirley (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for finally bringing this discussion to the talk instead of edit-warring. This edit is problematic for several reasons. First, I don't really care what Boebert calls herself. Multiple reliable sources (five or six?) refer to comparisons between Boebert and AOC. Also your characterization of The Squad as "a group of liberal Democratic congresswomen" is WP:SYNTH. If you read the squad page, "liberal" is never mentioned. And anyway, this article isn't about them. Next, you seem intent on inserting a clunky quote from a non-notable political science professor saying something that has already been said. If memory serves, you attempted to edit-war material out of the article that you claimed was WP:UNDUE. Including the quote" "...during Boebert's Republican campaign "she was trying to stir up their anger by directing it at Ocasio-Cortez and other liberal leaders on the Democratic side" is certainly WP:UNDUE. It is also very poorly-written. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 17:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's start with your first mistake. My wording "a group of liberal Democratic congresswomen" comes directly from the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel article (by Dennis Webb, dated July 12, 2020). It is not my phrase. It is the phrase of a reliable source. So your claim that my wording is WP:SYNTH is false. The wording I used is the wording used by a reliable source cited in the article. Now, if you want to change that wording then we can discuss. Also, you are right this article is not about the squad so why do you keep jamming them into the article? I believe it was you that mentioned them in first place (I could be wrong), but it wasn't me. Also, how Boebert describes herself is relevant. Now, I realize you don't care how Boebert defines herself, you made that clear, but your personal opinion is not the the standard that we use to make these decisions in Wikipedia. So that statement does not benefit you in this discussion whatsoever. You still haven't given a reason why Masket's comment shouldn't be in the article. It a comment from an expert (Univ of Denver), written in a reliable source (GJDS) on a topic the article is discussing. All you have said is the quote is "undue" but you haven't explained how it is undue. I have pointed out that Masket makes the valid point that Boebert was criticizing AOC and the others to motivate Republican voters to a Republican primary. Your sentence does not add that important piece of information and you haven't explained why that information must be removed from the article. I get it. You don't like it, but you haven't given any reason other than it is undue, but you haven't given any reason why you think it is undue. It is a conclusion without reasoning or support. - CharlesShirley (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, um, overarching characterizations of congressional careers should probably come from a more authoritative source than the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. EEng 21:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The current version is neutral and clearly-written. That is the only reason I support it. Feel free to ping some of the regular suspects to see what they think of your University of Denver quote. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 18:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, you might have a valid point about the quote being, as you say, "clunky" if the whole quote is used. But it can be trimmed down to get across the point that Boebert used her criticism of AOC as a campaign strategy to get Republican voters to the polls. This is a fact, a significant one at that, and you haven't given a reason why it shouldn't be in the article. You have just repeated your personal opinion over and over. If you really think it is "undue" then you need to explain why? An example of a good reason to support undue if, for example, I wrote a ten sentence paragraph on the campaign strategy, but of course I didn't so you can't use that reasoning to support undue. So what do you have? Anything? - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It already says During her campaign, Boebert criticized Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other members of "The Squad", positioning herself as a conservative alternative to Ocasio-Cortez. You haven't explained your problem with that. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 19:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. That's why I haven't been critical of it. There is nothing of which to criticize. It is fine as far as it goes. But it leaves out that fact that a Univ of Denver poly sci professor makes the further point that Boebert's criticism of AOC et al was a specific campaign strategy to drive Republican voters to the polls in a Republican primary that had a low-turnout and involved a sitting U.S. Congressman. Yes, Boebert tried to position "herself as a conservative alternative to" AOC. That is absolutely true. I have no problem with that wording. I have only been trying to add to that well-written fact the additional fact that Boebert's AOC et al criticism was not really about AOC et al (because she can't really do anything about them per se) but was designed to get Republican voters motivated to vote in a low turnout mid-summer election, during a COVID pandemic, to vote against a sitting U.S. Congressman. My addition is not an attempt to takedown your previous two sentences. It is about adding a little bit more information. And there is no way anyone can argue that the one little idea that I want to add was "undue". It was only two short sentences more. That is not undue. And it is not trivial. It was her campaign strategy. Her way to getting attention in a slow election cycle. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then add a trimmed down version of the Denver professor’s quote AFTER the current text. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 19:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, to be the "antidote" she'd have to be elected and show herself to be competent and popular once in office. Guy (help!) 15:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, thank you for your opinion which is not supported by a reliable source or anything really other than your own personal opinion which we all know is not a reliable source and is not something we can put in the article. - CharlesShirley (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, Hitchens' Razor: that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. We don't care what delusional nonsense candidates might use in their self-promotion. Guy (help!) 08:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

We agreed to keep the quote out of the article for now. So this debate is really moot. However, please don't pat yourself on the back too much and don't speak for everyone on Wikipedia because you don't. All one has to do is look at the Obama article and you can see immediately that Wikipedia does quote, as you would say, "delusional nonsense candidates might use in their self-promotion". Wikipedia quotes politician's nonsense all the time and Obama article is prime example of it. And the Obama article is just one of many glaring examples of it. - CharlesShirley (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

^^More WP:OTHERSTUFF and...is that...BIAS?!?!? KidAd (💬💬) 03:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry that I sliced Guy's lame argument into little tiny pieces. No bias there, just facts. - CharlesShirley (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Guy's lame argument, but no matter. The WP:OTHERSTUFF I was referring to was your Obama non sequitur. Boebert is no Barack Obama. And she isn't even a conservative equivalent to AOC. She's a dollar store Michele Bachmann. KidAd (💬💬) 01:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Oooh! OUCH! I don't know which of those two is more insulted by that. Come to think of it though, Bachman's the Dollar Store version of Palin; and Boebert's the five-and-dime version of Bachman. EEng 02:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That assessment is on-point. But if it's a Democratic counterpart Boebert seeks, look no further than Tulsi Gabbard. KidAd (💬💬) 02:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ha. Ha. Listen to EEng and KidAd pat each other on their backs like a couple of world-class political analysts. Its so true. Your irelevant opinions are being broadcast to the 3 or 4 viewers of the bottom of Boebert's talk page in Wikipedia. Ha. Ha. There is no bias there!!! Next stop the Washington Post or the New York Times. - CharlesShirley (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You're in no position to label opinions as irelevant. Take your bitterness elsewhere. KidAd (💬💬) 01:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Take you personal attacks on the subject of the article elsewhere. Stop violating a clear rule of Wikipedia. No personal attacks and that includes subjects of the articles, especially if they are alive. Please stop. You have repeated made the personal attacks and now is the time to stop. - CharlesShirley (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Please make up your mind. Are we spouting silly political opinions, or making attacks? WP:PERSONALATTACKS clearly states Comment on content, not on the contributor. I have been sure to abide by that guideline on this talk page. I've never insulted you or accused you of anything, but you appear to take criticisms of the article's subject as direct criticisms of you. Additionally, commenting on the facial similarity of politicians is about as tame as you can get. You, however, have been willing to play fast-and-loose by throwing words like "bias". Policy on personal attacks clearly states editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions. And before you revisit my use of the L-word (lunatic), the term is entirely apolitical. KidAd (💬💬) 20:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, come off it. If you had something to say about the antidote question, as it relates to article content, then I'd assume you'd have said it by now. And since you don't we're entertaining ourselves a bit; a little harmless fun lightens the workaday dreariness of editing, and your grave seriousness and affected horror are certainly prolonging the amusement. Anyway, you're saying comparing Boebert to Bachman and/or Palin is a personal attack on Boebert; in saying that aren't you making a personal attack on Palin and Bachman? Oh wait! Maybe you mean that comparing Boebert to Bachman and Palin is a personal attack on Bachman and Palin; so isn't that a personal attack on Boebert? EEng 05:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ha. Ha. You guys like to give it out, but you can't take it. This discussion is pointless because as I said days ago we have agreed to leave the sentence out of the article. But you both like to believe that your comments are changing the world. As I said your comments are irrelevant and pointless. You aren't going to be getting a phone call from the Washington Post any time soon. - CharlesShirley (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about. But what about your personal attacks on Boebert, Bachmann, and Palin? EEng 16:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

More irrelevant comments. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

So you're letting your personal attacks on these brave defenders of freedom and the Constitution stand? EEng 21:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You got nothing. Still dreaming about that Wash Post phone call? Ha. - CharlesShirley (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know where you got this Washington Post jab from. It is a well-known fact that WaPo is boomer-only. KidAd (💬💬) 23:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hannity appearances August 2020

Fielded on show. Notable? Wikipietime (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Socialism political issue

An editor removed the socialism political issue from the political issues section. This removal is incorrect. The discussion of socialism is an active topic right now in politics, in Boebert's campaign and in the U.S. Presidential election. The removal of Boebert stand on the issue is inappropriate. Also, the editor that removed it, even though it has been in the article for months, did not give a reason for the removal. The information is presented in a neutral manner, supported by a reliable source, and it is relevant to the article (Boebert's position on socialism). There is no reason it should be removed. None. - CharlesShirley (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The edit comment of the removal of the information was absolutely nothing. You can read the nothing burger here: Editor's comment with zero substance whatsoever. There was no discussion. There was no rationale. The editor does not address the substance of the argument whatsoever. It means nothing. - CharlesShirley (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, disagreeing with socialism is a "political position". It absolutely is. Socialism is a defined in Wikipedia as: Socialism' is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.

Disagreeing with the implementation of this system is a political decision. It is a currently a political issue because Bernie Sanders and AOC are supporters of Biden for President and they are lobbying him to go in the direction of socialism if he is elected President. Boebert has been speaking out about this in everyone of her campaign appearances. You can't deny that. It is a political position and it is her political position. - CharlesShirley (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Merely rehashing the candidate's talking points in such a way that makes it seem that socialism is somehow at odds with the U.S. Constitution is POV. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not rehash anything. That is what she said. You might not like it, but it is what she said and it is not a rehash. How would you want to rewrite the information, but because once again it is relevant, reliably sourced and it is neutrally presented. However, you claim it is not NPOV, so how would you rewrite it to make it neutral? - CharlesShirley (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps "rehash" was not the right word in that place. It is what Boebert said, sure. The Vail Daily source in that edit includes: “(Ocasio-Cortez) is putting on a progressive, socialist narrative to our people. I’m going to be the one who changes that conversation back to the Constitution, and what this country was founded on,” as a direct quote from Boebert. The CPR source is just as vague: While Boebert talks about the Constitution and freedom as her motivation for running, Mitsch Bush lists her guiding principles are compassion and pragmatism. "The Constitution and freedom"? Is she saying that she is an originalist, like Scalia? Is she saying that AOC is against the Constitution? Based on those two sources alone, this doesn't hold enough weight to include at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Also, there was absolutely no "strawman" argument in the presentation. The sentence says she opposes socialism and supports the Constitution. These two ideas can be separated if you would like, but it was not a strawman because she did not say the two were opposed as you inferred and claimed. That was your reading of the sentence. It was not a correct reading of the sentence, but the sentence can be amended. - CharlesShirley (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Wrong, you can't just put your own words in her mouth. She did not say she was an "originalist" that is merely your words, speaking of strawman arguments. It is fit for inclusion for the simple fact that she is against socialism. You many not like that fact. You may not want it in the article but that is how Wikipedia works. We have a list of political issues and she has expressed a political point of view that she is against socialism. It should be included. You might not like the way it was presented but that can be worked out but removing the fact that she is against socialism is whitewashing the article of her valid, substantive criticism of AOC and Sanders and the movement to impose socialism on the country. It is a very relevant political issue and should be included. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not say that she is an originalist. I said that merely saying that she supports the Constitution is meaningless. Every one of them supports the Constitution. AOC took an oath to protect it. We absolutely should include that she is against socialism. But the statement on the Constitution is ridiculous. So, I say put it back in without the Constitution part. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I will work on it. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, I just made this partial undo of my reversion of your reversion. That she opposes socialism is indeed a relevant piece for this bio. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• The difficulty in all this is that to "oppose socialism and support the Constitution", you have to know (a) what socialism is and (b) what the Constitution is. Even assuming we can find something that gets Boebert past those preliminaries, to say (in Wikipedia's voice) that Boebert opposes socialism and supports the U.S. Constitution and the founding principles of the United States makes us sound absolutely crackers. Opposing socialism can a meaningful, though (given that no one prominent in national politics advocates anything even within shouting distance of socialism) irrelevant position – assuming, again, there's any evidence Boebert knows what such a statement would mean – but saying with a straight face the she supports the U.S. Constitution is stupid, since taking an oath to that effect would be a requirement for her to be seated, should she be elected. The only way to present such material is as a quote, something like "When asked to summarize her political philosophy, Boebert said 'I oppose socialism and support the U.S. Constitution and the founding principles of the United States.'" Then readers can make of it what they will. EEng 19:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Politely, may I say. Bull hockey. There are many Americans who do not support the U.S. Constitution. It is not irrelevant to say you support the Constitution. It is not irrelevant to say you oppose socialism. Yes, they should be separated. I already agreed to that. But please beat the dead horse. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have trouble responding to what people say instead of things they didn't say. It may or may not be that There are many Americans who do not support the U.S. Constitution (I'd be interested to see your evidence for that), but it's not relevant to what I said, which is that there's no one running for the Congress who doesn't express such support. As for socialism, I clearly said that opposing socialism can be a meaningful position; ut what I also said is that it's clear Boebert doesn't know what socialism is so it's hard to credit such a statement coming from her as meaning anything. EEng 03:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, who doesn't support the Constitution? Anarchists, sure. But one would think that a candidate running for Congress does support the Constitution, since that's the document that creates the office. I agree with EEng that the whole Constitution part is meaningless and should be taken out. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu and EEng, and have removed the following two sentences: "She supports the U.S. Constitution and the founding principles of the United States. Boebert says that the Constitution and freedom are her motivation for running for office." Sorry, but this is unenecylopedic, vague, and promotionally worded. Virtually every congressional candidate ever has vowed to support Constitutions and freedom, just like mom, apple pie, and baseball. I think this conveys no information of value to our readers. If there is something more specific on offer, than perhaps inclusion would be appropriate. But an encyclopedia is not a place for bromides. --Neutrality^talk 23:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not meaningless. That is factually incorrect. There are people on television every night burning the U.S. flag, saying that America is evil and the country is based upon racism and colonialism and U.S. Constitution is invalid. That is a fact. What I just wrote is undisputed.  This is an argument made on media sources every single day. If you had made your claims six years ago then you would be correct. But now that every day goes by with claims that the Constitution is either outdated or invalid or criminal then saying you support the U.S. Constitution is a valid political issue and POV. Are you all making the claim that the riots are not going on? Are they a myth as Jerry Nadler claims? - CharlesShirley (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• If you think burning the flag means someone doesn't support the Constitution, then maybe Boebert should save you a seat in the crash civics course she'll need to take so as not to keep making a fool of herself if she gets to Washington. It is those willing to look critically at the state of the nation, and strive to help it move closer to the ideals to which it aspires, who best love the United States and its Constitution, and that's true even if they express that criticism in ways you or I find distasteful. Personally I would wash the flag instead of burning it, but a flag burner who understands the meaning of the Declaration of Independence is a better citizen than the proudly ignorant who sit on their fat asses waving a flag of whose meaning they have little comprehension. And you can support the Constitution and still want to see it changed.
• And if you actually think the US doesn't have a history of racism and colonialism – just as pretty much every country has its history of injustice and oppression, of whatever name or form – you're delusional.
• Nadler didn't say the riots were a myth. He said that the idea that Antifa (which is, I will agree before you say anything, a bunch of self-aggrandizing dumbfucks) is primarily responsible for the riots is a myth. Change the channel from Fox News and start using the brain God gave you.

And at long last, will you please learn to count colons? EEng 03:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I never said that. Your comment is completely off topic. I am a Native American, you damn fool. I NEVER said that. You sent an admin to coment lecture me on my talk page. I have been editing in good faith. You have attacked me personally. Stop it. What you just said is is not truthful. Please remove your comment. It is obnoxious, false, and not helpful. Please stop the personal attacks and remove the lie. I never said that and I don't believe that. You said a lie. You need to remove your falsehood. - CharlesShirley (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, EEng your debate style is childish. I could say to you, "If you think Adolf Hitler was a good Christian and great leader, then you are delusional." But I will not say that because you didn't say that and I don't believe you think that. Your argument is the ultimate strawman argument. I am aware of colonialism and racism, probably way better than you. You need to learn to debate without using made up strawmen, you are better than that. - CharlesShirley (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

How about another strawman argument you can use next time EEng, "If you think Jupiter is going to crash into Earth in the next 5 days, then you are delusional." See? See what I did there, I did what you did to make the point that you comment is full of bull hockey. - CharlesShirley (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• I never said that – You never said what? Please quote exactly what I said that said you said something you did not said.
• You sent an admin to comment lecture me on my talk page – Not the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
• What you just said is is not truthful. Please remove your comment. It is obnoxious, false, and not helpful. Please stop the personal attacks and remove the lie. I never said that and I don't believe that. You said a lie. You need to remove your falsehood. – Again, can't tell what you're talking about.
• I am a Native American, you damn fool – And I'm an Italian-Irish homosexual. What of it?
• I am aware of colonialism and racism, probably way better than you – Great! Then why did you complain that there are people on television every night – ... saying that America ... is based upon racism and colonialism as if there's something unfair about that?

I'm only responding at all because you've accused me of misrepresenting you. You're the one bringing all this stuff up about flag burning and riots and racism and colonialism and whether the Constitution is "criminal" or "invalid", none of which has anything to with with improving this article. Now if you want, answer my points above specifically, or (ideally) just drop all this nonsense and get back to discussing what should be in the article. EEng 21:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not say that racism and colonialism do not exist, have never existed. You made that up. It was your strawman and now you are acting like you don't understand. Which is it? Are you a genius or are you an order of fries short of a Happy Meal? You can't have it both way. Yes, Yes, Yes. You don't understand. Bull hockey. - CharlesShirley (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You are a piece of work. You take things out of context and create strawmen and you never focus on the point of the discussion. I never said that complaining about a racism and colonialism is unfair as you falsely claim, I said that the folks that are burning down cities and saying this are going one step further to justify the burning down of cities AND saying the U.S. Constitution is invalid as a result of racism and colonialism. They have a right to believe and say these things, of course, but my point is that they exist. There are people who do NOT support the U.S. Constitution. That is a fact and no amount of changing the subject, putting words in my mouth, or twisting my words will change the fact that there are people that do not support the U.S. Constitution alive and well in this country. Also, the wording that was removed also points out that she finds the U.S. Constitution to be an inspiration for her run for U.S. Congress. - CharlesShirley (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, these folks who do not support the Constitution do exist. And when she takes a stand to support the Constitution, as written, as backed up by the U.S. Supreme Court she is taking a political stand in direct opposition to the people who are burning down cities, burning down car lots, and saying the U.S. Constitution is invalid and illegal. - CharlesShirley (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you a genius or are you an order of fries short of a Happy Meal – Modesty forbids, but I'll be happy to give you contact information for some old professors and employers, the Pulitzer and Nobel committees, stuff like that. As for the rest, there seems to be an impenetrable comprehension barrier between you and your fellow editors, so I don't think we're ever going to make ourselves understandable to each other and we'd best terminate this. EEng 04:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, burning the flag is protected by the Constitution. See Texas v. Johnson. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Muboshgu. Flag burning is constitutional, but two things: (1) it is not relevant to this discussion about Boebert, and (2) I never said it wasn't constitutional, and (3) burning down buildings, burning up car lots, and shooting cops are not constitutional. Also, all of these things are way off the topic about whether the article about Boebert should have the political issue of supporting the Constitution. - CharlesShirley (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You're the one who brought up flag burning, colonialism, etc. It's just as irrelevant as her vague statement that she "supports the Constitution". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

No. Not at all. I said the issue is real because there are people who are politically active right now who are making it clear that they do not support the Constitution. You have not responded to that fact. You are just throwing out irrelevancies such as the it is constitutional to burn the flag. You have even admitted that there are people who do not support the Constitution. It is a political issue, whether you like it or not. - CharlesShirley (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

He mentioned that anarchists don't support the Constitution. Well, duh! – they're anarchists. There have always been anarchists. Good to know Boebert plans to hold fast against any potential takeover by anarchists or vegetarians or other realistic threats to the American social and political order. EEng 21:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are anarchists who do not support the U.S. Constitution and there are more anarchists in this country right now than there has ever been in this country. Also, there are Marxists in this country that do not support the Constitution, more Marxists than there has ever been. Also, there are radical Islamists who do not support the U.S. Constitution, more radical Islamists than there ever has been in this country. Taken together these are significant numbers, much more so that just 6 years ago, 10 years ago, or 20 years ago. This a fact and you can blow off these facts in a childish way, but that does not make them any less important. - CharlesShirley (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are anarchists who do not support the U.S. Constitution – What in the world is the point of even saying such a thing? I'm beginning to think you don't know what anarchism is. That aside, if you think there are more anarchists in this country right now than there has ever been then you're... well, I won't say delusional, but completely ignorant of history. As for radical Islamists, sure, that's a relatively recent phenomenon so probably there are more of them than ever; but it's odd that you don't mention neo-Nazi and other far-right groups, who by far outnumber all other forms of domestic terrorism put together, both in number of active adherents and in number of Americans killed and injured [9]. EEng 04:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point. There are at least hundreds of thousands of people that do not support the U.S. Constitution. You made my point, of course, unwittingly. - CharlesShirley (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

No one here, including you, has any idea what you're talking about. You speak in riddles. EEng 16:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any citations for claims such as there are more anarchists in this country right now than there has ever been in this country or your fear mongering about Marxists and radical Islamists? I'm thinking you should take a break from this. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no fear mongering going on here. That is a lie. You simply made that up. It is not true. Why do you feel the need to impose your false beliefs about me and what I am saying just to get your way in a discussion on Wikipedia? Please stop engaging in false claims about me, engaging in personal attacks. - CharlesShirley (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, so, in other words, you have no citations that you want to provide for this discussion. You want to simply make baseless accusations about anarchists, Marxists, and radical Islamists in ways that are completely off topic. I'm not making any personal attacks and I'm not assuming anything about your beliefs. I am observing the things that you are posting here, without any apparent reason or sourcing to back it up. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Look, Muboshgu. There is no need to continue this particular discussion about your false claim that I am "fear mongering". You are wrong. It was a lie. There is nothing else to discuss. You are correct that I have not provided citation but that does not mean that I was engaging in "fear mongering". That is your incorrect, politically charged conclusion. I am not going to spend time looking for citations either. That would be a waste of time, since you have jumped to your politically charged conclusion based upon nothing. I see where you and your fellow editors are going--based upon the conversation below and I will use my efforts to assist in that discussion, but I will not allow you make false, BS, claims about me just because you feel the childish need to bully me during a relatively unimportant discussion about this article on Wikipedia. You really should look inside yourself and ask yourself why you feel the need to make baseless accusations against me, i.e., "fear mongering" just gain a slight advantage in a Wikipedia discussion. You really should get that checked out. - CharlesShirley (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I've been waiting for you to back up any of your incendiary claims. If you're not "fear mongering" with your comments about anarchists, Marxists, and radical Islamists, what are you doing? Your comments here are the only false, BS claims on this talk page that I see. I'm not bullying you in asking for citations to back up anything that you're saying. Claiming that you won't because I'm biased against you is ridiculous. See the below comment I made about gun rights, which you acknowledged is a good point, for direct refutation of this ridiculous reply of yours. You're not providing citations for your claims because there are none, outside of an InfoWars-type reference that we won't accept. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It is fine for you to ask for citations. I am not going to spend time on it because it is a moot point. Also, you are engaging in bullying because you are jumping to the incorrect conclusion that I was "fear mongering". You can attempt to justify your comment all you want, you can hold your breathe, you can pound your feet, you can repeat yourself over and over again, you can act as childish as you want, but you can't justify saying that I have been engaging in "fear mongering" and it is as simple as that. We simply have a disagreement about something on Wikipedia and you are making a false claim about me to attempt to get your way. It is childish and beneath you. I was not "fear mongering", you lied about it, and that is the end of the discussion. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It is fine for you to ask for citations. I am not going to spend time on it because it is a moot point – Yes, no point looking up facts when you can just believe. EEng 20:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion is over. You're harping on two words that I said rather than reflecting on all of the words you said and how it can be interpreted by others. I see no purpose for your mention of "radical Islamists" and can only presume where that came from. This has been fruitless. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, watch it with the anti-gay exclusionary language! EEng 20:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Probably Tucker Carlson. KidAd talk 02:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

If we had something directly from Boebert saying this is the problem in America and only by serving in Congress can she "protect the Constitution", that could be worth including. Especially if she mentions Q. Otherwise, it's a campaign platitude to say you "support the Constutition Constitution". – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Though it carries more punch once they learn to actually spell the word constitution. EEng 04:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Typos will be the end of me. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Conservatives often say they are "protecting the Constitution" when they defend gun rights. If she said that phrase in the context of gun rights, we could use that to expand Lauren_Boebert#Gun_rights, which is surprisingly thin. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

These are good points. I will look for something similar. - CharlesShirley (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Arrest and Court No Shows

Not sure where the best place to put this relevant information in the article is. It's own section? In "Personal Life"? In "Early Life"?

Many sources are available, but I thought https://www.denverpost.com/2020/08/27/lauren-boebert-arrests-colorado-3rd-mitsch-bush/ seemed like a well researched source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.55.232.212 (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

All part of her preparation for public office. She wanted to see how the criminal justice system operates from a scofflaw's point of view. EEng 19:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)\\

Mother's party affiliation

Boebert says that her parents were Democrats in the years she was growing up. However, if we are to believe the Daily Sentinel, her mother Shawn Elaine Roberts was a registered Republican. The Sentinel, as per the Colorado Secretary of State's office, says the following: "According to the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office, Roberts first registered to vote in Colorado as a Republican in 2001, when Boebert was 14. Those records show that Roberts remained a Republican until changing to unaffiliated in 2013 and then to Democrat in 2015, when Boebert was in her mid- to late 20s and well out of her mother’s house, married and with children of her own." By this account Boebert's mother was a Republican from 2001 to 2013, unaffiliated in 2014, and a Democrat since 2015. In the Colorado Sun article Boebert says, “We moved here in 2000. And, my mom still voted Democrat. I don’t know about her party affiliation. I know that oil and gas was a huge influence. And so there could have been some influence there for her to register something, but my mom and I have spoken nearly every election season, and we’ve always argued about her votes.” Who is right, the records of the State of Colorado or Boebert's "I don't know about her party affiliation"? In any case, the State of Colorado's record ought to be in the text. Hence my edits. Chisme (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is not about Boebert's mother, is it? No, it is not. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course not, but part of Boebert's backstory is she rebelled against her Democratic mother to become a proud Republican. However, her mother couldn't have been much of a Democrat if she was a registered Republican. I guess the solution here is to take out the reference to her mother's party affiliation. Chisme (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Editor User:Glucken123 keeps putting Boebert full quote about QAnon in the opening paragraph and removing the fact that she has since stated that she is not a follower of QAnon. These edits in against consensus. Glucken123 needs to go to the talk page and get consensus for these edits. Glucken123 has not done that, or even attempted to. The QAnon stuff has been debated on this page many times and we agreed that a full explanation in the body of the article was required to cover it, which we have. And we agreed that a brief one sentence mention in the opening paragraph was required, which we worked on and compromised on. However, Glucken123 keep breaking that consensus and refuses to discuss, only revert. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, when User:Glucken123 edits the opening paragraph to insert the full quote and remove her "I'm not a follower" statement, Glucken123 put in the edit summary disingenuous reasons for the edit. The first edit states: "Updated QAnon allegations", which is not true because Glucken123's edit did not provide new information. The second edit states: "Vandalism. Sources have been provided with an explanation about support for QAnon"., which is not true because a simple revert to the consensus version is not vandalism in any shape or form. Glucken123 has the burden to form a consensus to get the edit in the article, that has not been done. As to the edit itself, it is undue weight for the opening paragraph because the full quote is in the body of the article and it is not NPOV because the edit removes the fact that Boebert has said she is not a follower. We should go back to the consensus version because it not undue and it is neutral in its presentation. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Somebody put a How query in the first paragraph in regard to Boebert and Qanon. I attempted to address the How? query by stating when and where she voiced her support for Qanon ("Everything I've heard of Q, I hope this is real, because it only means America is getting stronger and better, and people are returning to conservative values, and that's what I am for," Boebert said in a June 2020 interview with Steel Truth, a podcast that supports QAnon.) Clearly the How? query should go, since she did express some support for Qanon. I'm going to remove the How? query. The question now is how best to describe Boebert and Qanon. Maybe create a section to cover this subtopic? Chisme (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no question she expressed support of Qanon. Therefore the How? query in the first paragraph should go. I don't care to get in a dumb edit war about this but CharlesSirley should at least address why How? should remain. Chisme (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You are right. She did express support and then she backed off. The consensus is that we mention her statement and her back tracking in the opening paragraph. The full quote is in the body of the article if anyone wants to read it. But to put the full quote in the opening paragraph is not a neutral presentation. It is as simple as that. The full quote is in the body of the article. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

We agree. I have no objection to mentioning her statement and her back tracking in the opening paragraph and reserving the rest for later. I backed away from my initial edit (I failed to look at all the discussion before making it). What I object to is the How? tag. It implies that she didn't really express support for Qanon. In my second edit, I simply removed the How? tag. You reverted that edit. Why? Why should the How? tag remain? Chisme (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove the How tag, but don't put the full quote back in the article. It is undue weight and it is not NPOV. --

Gotcha. I'll remove the How? tag, and sorry for my previous edits. I wasn't aware of the previous discussion. I addressed the How? tag in my first edit without knowing what came before. Chisme (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Electoral College section title

An editor wants to change the title of the section to "government reform". Editor has not provided a rationale for this specious name change. I don't understand it. I have reverted the change of the title once. I think the editor should explain the title change and get consensus for the vague name change. The section talks about the Electoral College. It does not talk about changing all of government and it is not necessarily a "reform". That is a loaded word. There is zero consensus for this change. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Political Party Affiliation

In the information box on the top right (sorry, newb editor here that doesn't know the name of that box), under political party, it says Democratic from 2005 to 2007. I have not been able to confirm this anywhere and there is no citation for it on the page. Cortex21 (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyone have a reply for me? User:Missvain, I believe you were the one that reverted my 24 Nov change back to the previous version. Cortex21 (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we remove "Democrat" and the dates. I can't find any sourcing, either! Thanks for your persistence and pinging. Missvain (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Clean up this Article!

Who wrote this, a third grader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:500:C281:1210:9935:DA1B:8122:45D5 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality is disputed

The summary is not neutral. It contains highly inflammatory sentence: "Boebert had expressed support of QAnon, a far-right conspiracy theory,[1][2] though she later stated that she was "not a follower" of QAnon.". None of the links actually provide any evidence. They simply repeat this claim without any support. The sentence needs to be removed or moved to a section "Controversies" or some such. 76.119.114.137 (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It's easy to find evidence that she initially made some supportive comments, and subsequently backed away from it: Everything that I’ve heard of Q, I hope that this is real because it only means that America is getting stronger and better, and people are returning to conservative values [10]. I’m not a follower of QAnon,” Boebert said as she ended the interview. “My mom is not a supporter of QAnon, she just talked to me about it one time [11]. Whether or not it belongs in the lede is debatable. I'd lean toward saying that does belong, because along with her strong support of gun rights, the Qanon comments are mentioned frequently in reliable sources. Note that this has already been discussed (a few sections above this) and back in July 2020. There appears to be a solid consensus for the current wording. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe the article clearly needs to mention the QAnon comments. And the article does mention QAnon in the opening section and in the body of the article. The opening section really should just mention what makes the person notable in the first place and a few select, significant facts, if at all. However, there is very little reason to have the QAon info in the opening section. It is clear that she made some stupid statements early on about QAnon but once it was explained to her what QAnon really is she has been going out of her way not to repeat her statements in support like other QAnon supporters have done, e.g., the new congresswoman from Georgia. The QAnon thing is not what made her notable in the first place, that was her upset of a sitting U.S. Representative during a Republican primary. Also, her election to Congress in November is clearly acceptable for the opening section. But the there is very little justification for the QAnon info being in the opening section. Yes, it should be covered in the body, but not in the opening section. - CharlesShirley (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

After reading through approximately 10 articles on her association with QAnon, there is no way this should be in the opening paragraph. She has said two things: "Everything I've heard of Q, I hope that this is real because it only means America is getting stronger and better," followed by saying "No. I’m not a follower. This is just a fake attack from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. QAnon is a lot of things to different people. I was very vague in what I said before. I’m not into conspiracies. I’m into freedom and the Constitution of the United States of America. I’m not a follower."

So, she explicitly denounces it, and says her earlier comment was "vague" and is being misinterpreted and used against her as she doesn't follow it. The opening paragraph is explicitly contradicting her statements on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloppyjoes7 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Her support for the QAnon conspiracy theory is a key part to her notability. It distinguishes her from the typical Republican congressperson and is why she has been subject to so much RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That comment, from Snooganssnoogans, is simply not true. She became notable because she defeated a sitting U.S. Representative in a primary. That is how she got an article. She is not notable because she made two moronic statements. Also, Snooganssnoogans has no evidence for the above comment, that's way there was no actual evidence given to back up the untrue comment. - CharlesShirley (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Her support for QAnon in pretty much every single news report about her, often in headlines. It was in the coverage during her primary challenge, after she won the primary, after she won the general election, and ever since.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] This Reuters story from last week is a typical example as it covers Boebert on an unrelated issue but still prominently links her to QAnon as an explainer to readers of who she is[20]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no "support" for QAnon, other than one line where she gave a reason why she hoped it was true. She never said she supported it, and never said she believed it. To claim so is false, and unsupported by any facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloppyjoes7 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sloppyjoes7 I suggest you read Snooganssnoogans rather extensive list of sources and the rest of the discussion below. She has repeatedly shown her support for Q anon conspiracy theories. CUPIDICAE💕 21:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

And now you are edit warring despite an active and lengthy discussion here. Revert yourself or I will take this to WP:ANEW. CUPIDICAE💕 21:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not begin an edit war. You started reverting all my edits, not the reverse. Looking at all the sources:

The first has the single quote where she says she has "hope" that it's real "because it only means that America is getting stronger and better, and people are returning to conservative values." Therefore, she is actually voicing support for the idea that people are returning to conservative values. She never says it's true or that she believes it.

The second citation references the same interview, trying to tie her to QAnon by saying the host believes in it.

The third citation refers to the same interview.

The fourth citation says she hasn't "denounced" it, which is incongruous with her saying she is "not a follower" of QAnon.

The fifth citation references the original same interview, and even clarifies that "she stopped just short of saying she was a follower"

The sixth citation again references the same line.

The seventh citation again references the same line.

In summary, every single article uses only two pieces of evidence: The host supports QAnon, and the single line she said where she has "hope" that it's real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloppyjoes7 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans that "her support for the QAnon conspiracy theory is a key part to her notability". The first sentence should also describe her as a far-right conspiracy theorist, which is what she is and what she is primarily regarded as by RS. --Tataral (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

None of the links actually provide any evidence. -- the links are to reliable sources, which is all that is needed. News reports are "actual evidence". And this is not a matter of neutrality in any case. The sentence needs to be removed or moved to a section "Controversies" or some such. -- That's not how it's done. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

News reports are "actual evidence". -- Without commenting on the neutrality of the summary, not all news reports are reliable sources. Context of the news report is important. Perennial sources provides extensive guidance on this. Rklahn (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Some quotes since apparently Sloppyjoes7 cannot be bothered to read any of the dozens of sources:
  • Lauren Boebert, a political novice and gun-rights activist who has spoken approvingly of the pro-Trump conspiracy theory QAnon, claimed an upset primary victory on Tuesday night against Representative Scott Tipton of Colorado, unseating a five-term incumbent endorsed by President Trump. The New York Times
  • Boebert is one of several general election congressional candidates who have spoken in support of QAnon. Wednesday morning, Alex Kaplan, a senior researcher at liberal-leaning media-monitoring organization Media Matters for America, counted nine who would make it to the general election. Altogether, the organization has counted 59 congressional candidates who have expressed support for QAnon. NPR
  • Backers of QAnon conspiracy theory on path to U.S. Congress the literal headline of Reuters
  • Lauren Boebert isn’t the only pistol-packing-on-the-job restaurant owner in America, and she isn’t the first fan of the conspiracy theory QAnon to run for office, but she may be the first woman to combine those unusual elements – and they may have helped propel her to a primary win over a five-term congressman late on Tuesday." The Guardian
  • Never mind that Boebert, who has also made supportive statements about the online conspiracy theory known as "QAnon," posted a video on Twitter in which she reaches for her Glock semi-automatic pistol, placing it in a holster on her hip. The video then cuts to her striding down a street that appears to be in the city of Washington and then across the U.S. Capitol grounds. Haaretz

Do you need more? CUPIDICAE💕 21:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a single quote by Lauren Boebert has been provided that she "supports" QAnon. All quotes about "support" are editorializing by authors. The actual quote, in full, is “Everything that I’ve heard of Q, I hope that this is real because it only means that America is getting stronger and better, and people are returning to conservative values.”

The only other quote about QAnon referenced in any linked article is “No. I’m not a follower. This is just a fake attack from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. QAnon is a lot of things to different people. I was very vague in what I said before. I’m not into conspiracies. I’m into freedom and the Constitution of the United States of America. I’m not a follower.”

So, her open, clear, denouncement of QAnon by saying she is "not a follower" and that she is "not into conspiracies" and that her earlier statement was "very vague", saying she was ever a "supporter" of QAnon is misleading at best, and openly malicious at worst. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand Wikipedia. We report what reliable sources say and we also included her denial. Denial itself is not a reason to ignore the fact that she has significant coverage regarding her supporting Qanon conspiracy theories and a general support of their beliefs. We call Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury a conspiracy pusher despite the fact that he claims it's not. Because that is how sources work. We don't automatically discount what independent reliable sources say because a subject doesn't want it out there or denies it. CUPIDICAE💕 22:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

She never said she supports QAnon, so the opening paragraph has a blatant lie. Unfortunately, this lie has been repeated in many news outlets, and is therefore being used to justify repeating the lie in this Wikipedia article. However, the fact that she never said she supports QAnon and has explicitly denounced QAnon makes the cited sources unreliable. The only reliable sources are the quotes, which are already in the body. This misleading and incorrect line should be completely removed from the opening, and keeping it there is both misinformation and a flagrant lack of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloppyjoes7 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If you feel you absolutely have to include this incorrect information into an article that is supposed to be factually correct, I'd recommend you say something like "Sources have incorrectly reported Boebert is a supporter of QAnon." Anything else is a flagrant lie, since she is not a supporter of QAnaon and is quoted as saying she's not. Also, I'd hardly consider news sources that have a track record of reporting lies "reliable sources." Repeating the lies of a source makes Wikipedia not a very reliable source. You could even use the articles you're sourcing since they contain quotes from Boebert, but you're choosing to use the author's editorializing in the article instead. Derrick Lardner (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Electoral College rejection of votes from Arizona

Boebert objected to the electoral votes of the state of Arizona during the counting of votes to the Electoral College. She announced she would do this several days before. Which is more important, the announcement or the deed? I say the deed. The announcement is ancillary. To compromise, we can keep the announcement and the deed, but the deed definitely belongs. An encyclopedia is supposed to be statement of facts -- that is, events that occurred -- not a record of things people said they would do. Respectfully, Chisme (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Chisme for being respectful. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Chisme, what you note here is what irritates me about so many articles, especially in K-pop: "it was announced that". We need the facts, not the announcements, which are usually just little press pieces. In this case, the announcement would be useful to include of the person subsequently changed their mind, as some Senators did, but that's not what we have here. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Reason for dropping out

The article states that she dropped out of high school to start a family. This is speculative about the reason, suggesting that it was a well thought out plan. It seems just as likely, indeed more likely, that she became pregnant while still at school which more or less forced her to drop out.

Suggestion: reword as:

"... became pregnant and dropped out of high school", which adheres to the facts and avoids speculation about intent / planning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.140.196 (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I altered this, as the Durango Herald article cited has her stating she dropped out to take care of her child, but would have been class of 2004. I also added that she later got her GED as that article reports. The son appears on a listing for Rifle High School Class of 2019 [21], he it seems to match up pretty well. I wouldn't say "she became pregnant and dropped out of high school" because it seems she had the child before she dropped out.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"Socialism", again

CharlesShirley reverted my removal of the vacuous "she opposes socialism". They reverted Philip Cross's removal of that same line a few days ago, incorrectly claiming "it has been discussed many times"--it was discussed once, Talk:Lauren_Boebert/Archive_1#Socialism_political_issue. The only other editor I see who supported that line was Muboshgu--but Muboshgu, doesn't just about every single US politician oppose socialism? EEng also opposed inclusion, but their cogent (IMO) argument was shouted down by CharlesShirley as "bull hockey" (and then insulted EEng's intelligence--they have a long track record of personalizing disputes). Neutrality didn't speak out on the socialism bit, but I'm interested in their opinion; same with KidAd, who trimmed the original longer statement.

"I oppose socialism" is, as EEng argued, meaningless if there is no indication of what, according to the speaker, "socialism" means or what specific kinds of policies would count. One is reminded of the constant blurring between "socialism" and "democratic socialism" one finds among conservative politicians. I think it's time to reassess this "position": it's not a "position", it's just a bit of rhetoric. In addition, I'm a bit tired of the obvious policing of this article by CharlesShirley, who is responsible for half the edits and half the content of this article. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree for essentially the same reasons. This is a random comment at a random campaign event; it's not particularly noteworthy; and an good encyclopedia probably wouldn't seek to memorialize this particular snippet of bombast. It's also not really a "political position"; the source cited indicates that Boebert was criticizing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, not opining on grand economic theory. If we want a short summary of Boebert's rhetorical style and positioning, I would not object to something cited to something like this Sept. 2020 article in the NYT, which mentions that during her 2020 campaign, Boebert "bill[ed] herself as the answer to creeping socialism and promise[ed] to shake up Washington." That would be acceptable in the campaign section (not "political positions"). Neutrality^talk 18:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• I also agree with the wise Drmies. We might combine this laundry list of position headings; this would better convey that she's a pretty strict 2020-style GOP populist conservative.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I fully support "wise", mellifluent Milowent. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I believe I was saying that a bland comment akin to "I oppose socialism" doesn't mean much, but if we had something more specific, it's a valid political view to include. Based only on that AOC quote, I support the removal. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• I support the removal of "Boebert opposes socialism" or any other similarly vacuous statements. It is as empty and needless as writing "Boebert supports freedom" or "Boebert supports liberty". KidAd talk 19:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Remove, of course. It's like if the article said, in WP's voice, Boebert opposes meanness or something. It's meaningless. If we want to report the words that came out of her mouth, so that readers can make what they will of it, we could write Boebert says she is "opposed to meanness" but to say she's opposed to socialism, outside of quote marks, as if that means anything, makes us look foolish. EEng 19:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The entire "Political positions" section is skimpy as can be. Besides declaring her positions on these topics, the article should say why she takes her positions. In other words, these positions need more explanation. The way it stands now, "Political positions" shouldn't be a topic with subtopics. It should be a topic heading followed by a bulleted list with one bullet for each of her positions. To borrow from Gertrude Stein, there's no there there. Chisme (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Sorry, as much as you might like to expand on her political stances, it seems that the consensus of unbiased editors of this page is that Boebert’s and Republican’s stances are “vacuous” and “meaningless” and “really, can she define socialism”? Clearly the consensus of the editors here is that providing readers of this article with Boebert’s stated political positions is not encyclopedic because the consensus of unbiased editors is that those political positions are coincidentally just not worthy of inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.241.231.199 (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Please bring us some reliable sources on what she believes and why and we can expand those sections. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

No mention of her giving the murderous mob Nancy Pelosi's location?

That's a pretty big deal.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/qanon-lauren-boebert-nancy-pelosi-capitol-riot-b1785663.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.23.104 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Personally I wasn't going to wrangle with this one but it is worth discussion. She tweeted at 2:17PM ET "We were locked in the House Chambers." and at 2:18pm "The Speaker has been removed from the chambers." [22]. That's the entirety of the evidence. Its not a slam dunk that she was trying to inform the mob as to Pelosi's location, since she doesn't say where she went. She was speaking on the house floor a bit before these tweets, and she thanked someone at 2:10 who tweeted comparing her speech to one from Dwight on the Office. Dwight starts that video clip by saying "blood alone moves the wheels of history." [23] She next tweeted at 4:40pm about how she was safe and denouncing the violence.[24] Now, under Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol we see that this is pretty real-time information that she tweeted at 2:17-2:18pm. The Capitol was breached at 1:59pm. Rioters reached within feet of the Senate entrance at 2:13pm. Pelosi was removed from the House chambers at 2:14pm. What I find intriguing is that her tweets have utterly no context to them, almost like they were intended to be a DM. But that's merely my opinion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Its not a slam dunk that she was trying to inform the mob as to Pelosi's location -- this is not the sort of thing that editors should be trying to determine or opining about. WP is based on what is reported by reliable sources. That she made the statements has been widely reported. If reliable sources have something to say about whether she was trying to inform the insurrectionists about Pelosi's location, we can include that too. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree we must point to reliable sources, but I'm not an automaton in deciding what content to include in a BLP, so its within the proper scope of talk page discussion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• The lack of context Milowent points out is important. We don't really know why she tweeted "The Speaker has been removed from the chambers." We may never know. All we know is that (1) she tweeted it, and (2) it has resulted in calls for her to resign. We haven't gotten any sort of clarifying statement from her, that I am aware of. This may be something really important, but for now it seems WP:TOOSOON to know. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not how Wikipedia works; it is based on what is reported by reliable sources. That she made the statements has been widely reported. If reliable sources have something to say about whether she was trying to inform the insurrectionists about Pelosi's location, we can include that too. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The criteria for inclusion in a Wikipedia biography article is not now and has never been, in toto, "[thing] happened and it's supported by reliable sources". That wouldn't pass muster for a regular article, let alone a BLP one like this, where the standards are deliberately more strict. The fact that she posted what sources say she posted is not in dispute. Whether she meant what some think she meant, however, very much is in dispute. Speculation that someone committed a federal crime is plainly inappropriate for a BLP page. The fact that that speculation takes the form of reliable sources reporting on the opinions of others doesn't change that. -- Hux (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• This is probably the one thing for which she is best-known, internationally at least and perhaps everywhere in the US outside of Colorado's 3rd congressional district. It should definitely be included. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Just because something is believed doesn't mean it's true. No source explicitly quotes her as marking the location of Pelosi, so it shouldn't be included. Derrick Lardner (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Boebert's actions on January 6 require a section in this article?

Do Boebert's actions immediately prior to, during, and after the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol require their own section in this article? As of today, her actions on January 6 are described in two paragraphs under the bland heading "Tenure." Boebert's actions on January 6, 2021 made her a nationally known figure. On account of her "1776 moment" tweet, her tweet regarding Speaker Nancy Pelosi's location at the outbreak of the riot, and her condemnation by Democratic politicians, Boebert's name has become nationally known. Her name was in national news broadcasts last night; her name also appeared in national publications such as Newsweek and the Independent. Because her actions on January 6 are what make her known to most people, I suggest her actions on January 6 should be described under a heading in this article. Chisme (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• You got a point; these events put her on the map. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This is completely false. Lauren was well known way before January 6. Laurens tweet about Nancy said... The speaker has left the building.. The entire event inside the house was being broadcast live on C-Span. When Lauren tweeted that nobody knew inside the house at that point why Nancy Polosi had left the building. Someone came in and whispered to her and the Leader they had to leave but left behind all the other Congressman on the floor without knowing of the Breach. Please get your facts straight before you post on someone else. Southernbrn (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Full page protection

I've fully protected the page: even longterm editors are making problematic edits. I am not endorsing any content currently on the page or not on the page. Y'all know how to make proposed edits and what consensus means. tedder (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

But you apparently don't know what the WP:Protection policy means. 15 days of full (!) protection is absurd, and even more so when one considers that you've apparently taken no steps at all to address any problems in less draconian ways. I suggest you reverse yourself to save the embarrassment of someone else doing it for you. Paging Drmies. EEng 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem has been addressed by others, there's a lot of WP:REVDEL going on. If admins want to shorten it, that's fine. It's common for admins to ask with WP:WHEEL in mind. But your inflammatory tone doesn't really make me think full protection was a mistake. tedder (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There appears to have been a single incident of someone adding something inappropriate, after which a respected admin and former arb who is active on the article and its talk page made a single revdel (not "a lot of REVDEL going on") and warned that editor, and apparently thought that was sufficient. Then you, who have never participated in the article in any way and apparently have no idea what's going on, came lumbering in with this ham-handed pronouncement completely out of keeping with policy. Full protection, of any duration, is a last resort. Someone needs to go back to admin school. EEng 04:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

User:EEng, the material was revdeleted on 15 December already by Ohnoitsjamie, and again by me on 13 January, and I separately revdeleted an edit summary. So that's 16 revdeletions in all (you also have to revdeleted subsequent edits, until the information is removed). Plus three more on the talk page. In other words, there is continued reason for concern. I don't want to call it a smear campaign, but they're serious BLP violations by overenthusiastic editors, at least one of whom should have known better. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know about December, and a single block of contiguous revdelled edits is really only a single incident. The point remains: full protection was absurd. EEng 17:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Im shocked to find this page full page protected with such little justification. It seems very heavy handed, especially when compared to the protection level of similarly controversial biographies of living persons. Im not experienced enough of an editor to know what, if any, appeal process there might be here, but my next move is to research it. I would urge @Tedder: to reserve in the mean time. It should also be known that I know of EEng, I find the tone inflammatory here in addition to my own experience elsewhere, but here, EEng is right. A little reading between the lines, and assume good faith is needed here. Rklahn (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the wrong move. I've edited a lot of highly active controversial pages in my time and I don't understand why full protection is warranted here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• 15 days of full protection was too much. pbp 15:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Logging on and seeing consensus here, I'll remove it (actually, take it back to basic semi-pro). tedder (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Grammar, please!

Please change "had went off" to "had gone off" in the section on the metal detector.Bruxism (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm perfectly acceptable in various American vernaculars--style, not grammar! ;) Drmies (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Had went off" is grammatically incorrect according to all reliable grammar authorities. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/learn-the-difference-between-gone-and-went-in-less-than-a-minute/ -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "Had went off" is in no way acceptable. Only someone without an education would think that made sense.

• • • Per descriptive grammar (I'm not a fan of the way English Wikipedia currently gives that article a generic title that only specialists would recognize as having a specific meaning, and doesn't use the term that was used in my undergrad linguistic classes anywhere in the lead, but not being myself an expert in linguistics -- except insofar as "Japanese linguistics" is essentially the same field as Japanese classical literature -- I'm reluctant to change it...), it's less a problem of "grammar" than of register. It's my understanding that, anywhere "had went off" is used, it is considered to be casual/slang, and would therefore be generally discouraged in Wikipedia articles per WP:SLANG. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
      • IP, you can't say "all reliable grammar authorities" and then post a link to a page on the grammarly website that has almost no content. Hijiri88 used the word "register", which is a fine word to use here also. Yes, we're not supposed to use slang, but "slang" is really a derogatory term, in my opinion, so I prefer to call this a matter of style: and the style on Wikipedia, and in academic writing, is "proper" upper- and middle-class (white) American English, not the dialects and vernaculars in which "has went" and "had went" are acceptable. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Mention of support for storming of the capitol

I believe that her support for the storming of the capitol should be mentioned in the lead. pbp 15:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The above comment from PBP89 is flat out wrong. She did not say she supported storming the capitol. There is no reliable source that states that either. Since there is no reliable source that says that there is no way it should be mentioned in the lead. - CharlesShirley (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Dude, what do you think "Today is 1776" meant? What about the reporting that she tweeted out Nancy Pelosi's secure location? Each can be backed up by multiple reliable sources. You're POV-pushing, dude. pbp 16:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Boebert is having quite a first week in office. She had promoted Jan. 6 as a day when the election could be overturned, told her supporters that Trump should not pack his bags just yet and repeatedly compared it to 1776, the year of America’s revolution. As the rioters closed in, she tweeted updates, leading to specious allegations she was aiding the riots. I believe that's as far as RS are going as of now, and will refrain from speculating on what may come next because of BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

We added to her article that she refused to have her purse checked by Capitol Police, which is not encyclopedic in any manner whatsoever. We added that her Twitter account was suspended for one week, which isn't really encyclopedic either. We added that Democratic politicians and Democratic residents of Durango and Pueblo want her to resign. Surprise, surprise, surprise!!! Is that really encyclopedic? No. What's next? I'm not POV-pushing. What POV am I pushing? That we should have some kind of logic to the additions. How is that POV-pushing? It is not. I'm not the editor that has put in the article that her bag was checked (Oh my!). I simply made the comment that she did not storm the capitol (which she didn't) and I said she did not "support storming the capitol", which is true. If there was a reliable source to back up your claim you would have provided already, but you haven't. If I am wrong, which I am not, where are the reliable sources that say, "Boebert supported storming the capitol"? Where? PBP89 please provide that reliable source. The Denver Post article, provided by Muboshgu, does NOT, in any way, say as PBP89 claims, "her support for the storming of the capitol". It does not say that, it does not support PBP89's claim. The evidence, so far, is not there. It just isn't. So call me a POV-pushing editor and I will point out that your claim that I am POV-pushing is BS, which it is. You want to put that in the article? Fine, provide a reliable source that says that. The DP article doesn't cut it. - CharlesShirley (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The bits about the purse check and Twitter suspension, I don't know if that's anything more than WP:RECENTISM. The storming of the Capitol is clearly important. We have RS tying her rhetoric, especially that "1776" tweet, to what came next. I agree with you that we shoudln't say she "supported storming the Capitol" because that goes beyond what RS say. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree with Muboshgu on this. Unless we find a RS that says she "supported storming the Capitol", it's not appropriate for this page. That would be analysis and thus original research. However, there should be enough encyclopedic context present for the reasonable reader to be able to draw reasonable conclusions. I think that means "1776" in, "storming" out. Rklahn (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The only POV-pushing BS is you, @CharlesShirley:. It's blatantly clear from Muboshgu's source and several others out (including her own damn Twitter) there that she supported overturning the election and retaining Trump in violation of norms, laws and the Constitution. You're trying to downplay Boebert's extreme viewpoint and are using wikilawyering to achieve it. pbp 20:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89, please strike that "t" word. That's a BLP violation, and talk pages of BLPs are under BLP rules as well. Unless there is concrete proof that she helped organize or provide support, we can't go any further than what the reliable sources are saying. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You apparently have no idea what "is encyclopedic" means. What POV am I pushing? -- it's not subtle or unclear. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That something in her purse set off a metal detector is nothing, but that she refused to have her purse searched at the Capitol, after all that happened, with her record of claiming she'll pack her gun anywhere she likes, that's more than a bit relevant. Hell, even Baker Mayfield gets searched every time he walks into the stadium. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Let's just wait and see what reliable secondary sources say. I have a feeling we are going to learn more about her "support" or "involvement" in the attack in the upcoming days/weeks. Also hoping we can curb the trivial stuff - she seems to get herself in trouble in small ways every day, let's just focus on what is encyclopedic (what matters in the grand scheme of things) and what is backed with multiple reliable secondary sources. Thanks User:CharlesShirley for cutting out the cruft. Keep up the good work everyone. Missvain (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Moved the Twitter blurb to personal life

Twitter has since unlocked her - within hours of the lock - and said it was an accident. See source here. Perhaps it is valid in a section that documents her use of social media (which is a thing, that is for sure) then it would make sense. But, including it in her tenure section - which is for her work in Congress - makes little sense (but, I write about congressmembers on Wiki day in and day out, so perhaps I've just gotten the MOS down pact, ha!). Besides, it was her personal Twitter account that was locked and unlocked. On that note, I'm moving it to the personal life section. Missvain (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This needs updating

Lauren Boebert resigned. Please fix this — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoldUp444 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Boebert herself did not resign, her communications director did. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Education

Is she a high school or college graduate? Such information is presented for most political office-holders yet this seems to be absent for Mrs Boebert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.138.173.197 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

She has a GED. It's already in the article and infobox. VQuakr (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

-- -- -- -- -- -- SORRY I DON"T KNOW HOW TO EDIT -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

RELATED: Boebert received her GED one month before running for Congress. This seems an important point for someone advocating the dissolution of the Dept. of Education. Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/boebert-twitter-mocked-education-level — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.223.103 (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

Controversies

Following Boebert's dog code violation, Boebert's neighbor filed a report alleging Boebert continued to harass them. According to court records, Boebert was summoned by the court for the harassment but formal charges were not filed.

Following Boebert's 2016 charges for careless driving and operating an unsafe vehicle, Boebert no showed the court date. She was arrested in February 2017 for failure to appear.

Boebert's now husband, Jayson, was arrested and found guilty for public indecency and lewd exposure due to showing his genitals to a underage children in 2004. Lauren was present for the incident. They were not yet married at this time.

In June 2017, Boebert's restaurant was implicated in a food poisoning due to contaminated pork by the Garfield County Public Health Department impacting a reported 80 individuals. Boebert had not obtained approval or licensing to serve her restaurant's food at a rodeo event where the food poisoning occurred. Additionally the health department determined numerous food safety regulations had not been followed. Lauren Boebert issued a statement but did not apologize for the incident. Huck719 (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

References

 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. Do you want this content included in the article? If so, please state so, and say where you think it should go. Seagull123 Φ 15:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

False Citations

The citations do not reference any legitimate facts that she follows QAnon. In fact they prove just the opposite Lepard88 (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. We've rehashed this a thousand times now. Read what is actually written. CUPIDICAE💕 20:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel like cupidcae is consistently allowing their own political beliefs to get in the way of objective editing on this page Derrick Lardner (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Misleading wording in Early Life section

The wording at the end of the early life section seems to incorrectly imply that she worked as a pipeliner after she attained her GED in 2020. TimPerkin9 (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Birth

Lauren was born in Orlando Florida Laurens was born on December 19 1986 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southernbrn (talk • contribs) 11:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? See WP:UNSOURCED Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Boebert was born on December 19, 1986. Here is a source: https://cqrcengage.com/anca/app/person/1376495

The anecdote about why she carries is false

Bobert frequently recounts the anecdote that she began carrying a firearm after seeing someone being beaten to death in front of her bar. That could generously be described as an embellishment. Someone died of a meth overdose half a block away. They had been beaten several blocks away earlier in the day but it wasn't their cause of death and she certainly didn't see it.

I think it's important to include the section on business ownership given that she has repeatedly asserted it and it is integral to the brand identity of the restaurant but I believe that the word "falsely" should be added in the interest of accuracy.

Cite: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/03/lauren-boebert-story-gun-mainly-fiction O76923 (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Information added. starship.paint (exalt) 05:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It is important to note that vanity fair is not a neutral source, and has been consistently anti-gun ownership, and is pro-Democrat.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

Lauren uses the neopronoun (patriot) to refer to patriotself, according to patriots Twitter account. To honor patriot and other queer people this Pride month, the language in this article should be changed to reflect patriots correct pronouns. 2601:545:C701:9C90:5D59:ED7C:7F6:CB6 (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I know this edit request was made nearly a month ago, but even were this were true and actually verifiable, I'm not sure this is WP:DUE. The edit request, to be quite honest, also makes little sense; I'm not sure what this has to do with LGBTQ+ pride, and this almost certainly wouldn't be an expression of queerness. This honestly appears to a bad faith effort to introduce vandalism to a protected article through the edit request process, which is something I haven't seen before. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Denouncing Conspiracy Theories

Congresswoman Boebert has also denounced such conspiracy theories and has publicly stated that she is "not a follower of QAnon" <https://www.fox21news.com/news/election/lauren-boebert-addresses-covid-wildfires-and-qanon/>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cglb1780 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Cglb1780, see WP:MANDY. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 August 2021

Under the personal life section, remove non-NPOV language here: The petty offense was dismissed because the Mesa County district attorney's office believed a jury would not convict her. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The term petty offense is an actual categorization of certain types of crimes, like the one that Boebert was arrested for. The inline source uses the phrase. I've linked the term in the body to make it clear that we're not calling the offense "petty" in an attempt to minimize it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Boebert pushed to loosen oil drilling rules

while belatedly reporting her husband's $478,000 energy industry consulting income in 2020.[25][26] Her husband has two LinkedIn profiles, one as a consultant for "Boebert consulting,"[27] another as a well site supervisor at Chesapeake Energy[28]. Lauren now sits on the Natural Resources Committee. soibangla (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Early life

Boebert was born in Altamonte Springs, Florida, on December 15, 1986 to Shawn Elaine Roberts, an 18-year-old single woman; the identify of her father has never been proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackinec (talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Summarizing criminal charges in personal life section

The second paragraph in the "Personal life" is problematic. The only source is Colorado Newsline, which is not a reliable source. The lack of good sourcing makes a paragraph of content look undue. I looked around for better sourcing and found this article in the Denver Post (which is already used later in the section). There doesn't seem to be substantial coverage of the disorderly conduct charge. I'd suggest that we summarize the Denver Post article by combining the content in the second and third paragraphs of the "Personal life" section. I would suggest something like "Boebert has been arrested three times and had one court-ordered summons, all for petty crimes. In 2015, she was arrested for disorderly conduct at a music festival. Later that year, she was arrested for failure to appear in court on the disorderly conduct charge. The charges were ultimately dismissed. In 2016, Boebert was charged with careless driving and operating an unsafe vehicle. She skipped her court date and later pleaded guilty to the unsafe vehicle charge and the careless driving charge was dropped." Marquardtika (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The summary is insufficient. The Denver Post article cited as a source mentions four arrests, not three.

• First arrest in 2010, accused of dog code violations (for letting her pit bulls loose and allowing them to threaten a neighbor's dogs), and for personally harassing two of her neighbors. Boebert paid a fine for the violations, while she was "ultimately was never charged with harassment".
• Second arrest in 2015, for a "verbal altercation with police", and for urging detained people to flee from the police. (Comment: I was unaware that this was a reason to be arrested).
• Third arrest in 2015, for twice missing her court dates over the previous charge. Boebert claimed that she had simply forgot. "The disorderly conduct charge was dismissed because there was “no reasonable likelihood of conviction should (the) case go to trial,” a prosecutor wrote at the time."
• Fourth arrest in 2017. She had been only charged with a minor traffic violation in 2016, for rolling her truck into a ditch. But she was arrested for (again) failing to appear in court. She was jailed for 100 minutes, and then released on bond. She pleaded guilty on the unsafe vehicle charge, but the careless driving charge was dropped.

I suggest covering all four arrests in summary, and explaining that two of the arrests were for failing to appear in court, rather than any other charge. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You are right, four arrests and not three. My bad. It looks like the article is only covering two of the four right now. Any suggestions on how to summarize all four? Marquardtika (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest following my summary above, while not mentioning the neighbors' names. Dimadick (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Husband's arrest for exposure

I've added sourced info on Jayson's exposure of his penis to a 16 year old and 20 year old in a bowling alley. It was reverted with a request for secondary sources. I have added secondary sources now and opened this section here to avoid edit warring. If there is debate about whether this information belongs, please have it here, thanks. john factorial (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I've now had my edits reverted twice citing a lack of consensus, but the reverting editors are not contributing to this discussion here. Edit wars take a minimum of two parties. One (me) is contributing & seeking consensus, the others so far are not. Let's talk about why you think this content doesn't belong and where it might. john factorial (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Mubushgu & KidAd what is your suggestion? john factorial (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. That means you. Your edits violate WP:BLPBALANCE, which states, among other things, beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Boebert's controversies are covered in depth on this page, as they should be. But her husband's arrest record is not relevant to her biography in the slightest. KidAd • SPEAK 19:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, but I believe that an elected public official having chosen to marry a person arrested in that official's presence for exposing themselves to a minor in a public place is indeed relevant to that official's biography and not should go unmentioned. I find multiple sources reporting on this story only in the context of Boebert's life, not merely in the context of 2004 news or Colorado news, etc., and I find a number of WP biographical articles that detail the subject's spouse's abuse of minors as an important aspect of that person's biography. john factorial (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

We don't deal with WP:OTHERSTUFF. What I see is one blog post with the primary document and only one other source, Daily Dot, running a story on it. Why other media outlets have not reported on it, I do not know. But that suggests the WP:WEIGHT isn't here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I can provide many more secondary sources of media outlets reporting on it with a simple "jayson boebert exposure" Google search if that's the issue, but I don't think that is the main argument against inclusion. KidAd's point seems to indicate that this information has no place on WP—that a spouse's alleged sex crimes don't belong on the subject's BLP page, and (we likely all agree) Jayson Boebert is not notable apart from his marriage to Laurent Boebert. (Aside: thank you both for your notes on WP policy they are truly helpful.) john factorial (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Right john factorial, but if you google search just the name, "jayson boebert," the only relevant results are from Twitter, blogs, and the dailydot article. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The secondary sources reporting Jayson Boebert's exposure in the context of his relationship with his public servant spouse include more than tweets, blogs, and a dailydot article. At the time of this writing citations could include Salon.com, August 31, 2021, New York Post, January 16, 2021, Heavy.com, August 30, 2021, Hill Reporter, August 31, 2021, et. al. I'm not saying these are sources I would read in my daily life, but am illustrating that it's wrong to say only twitter and blogs have reported on the issue, and noting that those who report on Jayson Boebert's actions do so in the context of his being the spouse of the subject of this article. john factorial (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, Lauren Boebert was there at the time, which means it DOES have something to do with her. Salon.com, August 31, 2021

I would oppose including it. I do not like Boebert, but this would be WP:UNDUE. If she comes under fire for it in some way, maybe. But if Washington does not care, why should we? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

In addition, her husband's alleged crime is not her crime. starship.paint (exalt) 02:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I only arrived at this talk page because I was confused about how it wasn't here. There's dozens of articles about it and I find the omission confusing. To say it's guilt by association seems like it's missing the relevance; this is the main thing most people have heard about her husband. It's somehow become a politically relevant topic on account that she as a representative had frequently accused others of perverted acts, without addressing this incident. At this point, it does seem like an act of deliberate exclusion. -OrinZ (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

OrinZ, this is a WP article on Lauren Boebert, not about her husband, or his alleged crimes that are not covered by credible sources. I think a lot of the points already made above sum up that pretty well. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The primary argument I have read so far in opposition to inclusion is: 1. that Jayson Boebert is not notable enough to have his own page, 2. that a spouse's sex crimes don't belong on the subject's page, 3. thus, although she is a public servant whose spouse is a sex criminal, these facts about Lauren and Jayson Boebert have no place on Wikipedia whatsoever. In seeking a solution, can we identify any of these three points with which we all disagree? Should Jayson Boebert get his own page? john factorial (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Factorial: - you listed four sources above, but I don't think any of them are good sources. If there were more reliable sources (green on WP:RSP) not only reporting on his crime but also linking Lauren to his crime (in a way that goes beyond her simply being his spouse) then we could see an argument for inclusion. starship.paint (exalt) 01:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Birth date

Boebert's Birthday Needs to be changed. Her Birthday is December 19, not the 15th like it says now. Here is a source: https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/lauren-boebert-stan-lane-paternity-dispute and here: https://cqrcengage.com/anca/app/person/1376495 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jssettle (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Congress.gov gives her birth date as December 15. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is Proud Boys referred to as a 'white nationalist' group?

The way the sentence reads, it seems to say not only that the Proud Boys is a 'white nationalist' group but that the member 'self-proclaimed' that it was. Proud Boys is undoubtedly pro-violence, political, nationalist, and probably sexist. In any group, there are probably some members who have varied personal beliefs, even 'white nationalist' ones. But to say the group is can only be done with some new definition of 'white nationalism'. 'Neo fascism' would be possibly more correct since they do have positions on religion. They don't espouse as a group racism. Their leader is inconveniently both black and an immigrant.

More accurate and aligning with a neutral position might be:

In September 2019, Boebert aide and future campaign manager Sherrona Bishop published a video on her Facebook page in which she interviewed a self-proclaimed member of the extremist hate group Proud Boys, which Bishop called "pro-everything that makes America great", adding "thank God for you guys and the Proud Boys". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.182.37.58 (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

You have a point, most sources do not call the Proud Boys "white nationalist" but they do call it "far-right," so I will put that in the article instead. Bill Williams 17:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Controversy

In November 2021 Boepert made Islamophobic remarks about Representative Ilhan Omar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.93.147 (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This is already included in Lauren Boebert#Islamophobic comments. Kleinpecan (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Far-right political spectrum

I do not really object to Bill Williams' removal of the "far-right" category, but it does seem she is characterized as being or catering to the "far-right" by at least some RS:

• Aspen Times
• Independent (UK)
• NY Times
• Salon

EvergreenFir (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah definitely. Numerous sources state his association with the far-right, but I could only find a Rachel Maddow talk show blog and some local Colorado sources specifically referring to him as far-right. Bill Williams 00:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair point. Might be something for future discuss. Like I said, though, I don't object to the removal of that category. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Many refer to her as pandering to the far-right, which certainly could be added, but most do not refer to her as far-right when describing her, in comparison to Marjorie Taylor Greene for example. I think it would be worth putting some of her far-right relations or something similar next to her association with far-right militias, I just don't think it should call her "far-right" directly since the only congressperson who it does that to is Greene, and she is not nearly as controversial. Bill Williams 00:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

soibangla [29][30][31][32][33] to list a the first few sources I just found on google, and I could provide more, not a single refers to her as far-right. When mentioning Marjorie Taylor Greene on the other hand, many frequently refer to her as far-right. The sources on Boebert mostly mention her associations with far-right people or organizations, which is already mentioned in the lead, and rarely refer to her specifically as far-right. Bill Williams 01:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, your provided sources are A. a local news source. B. "Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." and C. the NYT did not call her far-right, simply stating "she was eventually granted access, but not before engineering a made-for-Twitter moment that delighted the far right" and "she is only 10 days into her term but has already arranged several episodes that showcased her brand of far-right defiance as a conspiracy theorist who proudly boasts of carrying her Glock handgun to Washington" meaning she has behaved and gained support from some in the far-right but never specifically calling her far-right. Bill Williams 01:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a problem with local news sources? Of course not, they're closest to their subjects. NYT did call her far-right. I can replace MJ with others, which is green. soibangla (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you read what I quoted from it? Your source did not call her far right. The issue with a local news source is that it should not be used to make a claim on a controversial subject that most reliable sources do not make. Bill Williams 01:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

They state that she is associated with some on the far-right, not that she is. Yes, a few sources call her far-right, but the vast majority do not, at least not most of the time. Mother Jones can be reliable but it is highly opinionated and should not be used to make such a controversial claim, as stated on perennial. Bill Williams 01:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Your source did not call her far right They all did. soibangla (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Then send a quote, and again, "they all" means your two sources that should not apply, and once again, those three do not overshadow the dozens that do not regularly call her far-right. Bill Williams 01:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Gosar&diff=prev&oldid=1055292915 soibangla (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you serious right now? That is completely unsourced OR. There are 45 members of the House Freedom Caucus, and reliable sources do not refer to every single one of them as far-right. Bill Williams 01:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

HAHAHA! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Gosar&diff=1055293855&oldid=1055293577 soibangla (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are acting like this is just a joke. This is a serious matter on a page viewed by thousands of people every day, and it seriously influences their opinion on the topic when you add "far-right" to some of the first words of the article. Please respond seriously to the matters I am addressing. Bill Williams 01:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

According to the same OR logic you are using, the Squad are the most liberal members of the Democratic party[34][35], and along with the House Republicans you call far-right who opposed Biden's agenda, they too voted against it. And if you want to use some sources that WP:PERENNIAL states should not be used for controversial claims, you can visit[36]. Either way, multiple sources call them far-left[37] yet that is still not in the article because that is not what they are called by most reliable sources the majority of the time. Bill Williams 02:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Only sources I could find on Three Percenters that relates to Boebert are [38][39][40] and mention how she posed with them in a photo a single time and posted some tweets that sounded like what they might say. Adding to the body might make sense, but "close connections" is quite the stretch to add into the lead considering only only a few sources and not most refer to it that way. To quote the article, "He added, 'Simply because she takes a photo with someone that asks for one doesn’t mean she endorses every single belief they have or agrees with all other public statements or causes they support.'" Additionally, I could not find any source stating that she has "close connections" to the Oath Keepers. Bill Williams 20:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Bill Williams, you wrote here that There are 45 members of the House Freedom Caucus, and reliable sources do not refer to every single one of them as far-right. I provided numerous RS in the "Political positions" section, and they also mention other members of the "far-right nay caucus" as "more conservative than the average" House members and that they "embrace [] far-right memes and conspiracy theories." The WP leads for at least two of them (Taylor Greene and Gosar) label them as far-right. Do you still object to adding "far-right" to Boebert's lead? I don't understand why you reject local news sources on a local subject. Boebert is the House representative for her Colorado district (one of 435 nationwide), so it stands to reason that local news media pay more attention to her than national or international ones. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

One source describing their positions on those specific issues as supposedly far-right does not equate to multiple reliable sources describing the entire freedom caucus as far-right. Additionally, the local sources are not unreliable on everything, I'm not trying to say that, but it is important to use more accepted sources for a significantly controversial claim that she is "far-right" when MOST sources do not describe her that way. I agree that it belongs in the body, since a number of sources use that description, but not most of them most of the time, so it does not belong in the lead. Bill Williams 18:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Break

In addition to the numerous sources in the body characterizing her as far-right, there are also these more recent reliable sources.[41][42][43][44] soibangla (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I am definitely against putting "far right" where you did, second only to her name and birth date, ahead of her nationality and occupation. The lead should be expanded with what she has said and done in Congress. Doesn't some of that speak for itself better than throwing that label in there? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Instead of "A member of the Republican Party," would "A far-right member of the Republican Party" be acceptable? soibangla (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely better, or less bad (depending on one's perspective) than "... is a far-right American politician", but first there's the matter of whether or not "far right" belongs in the lead at all. I'm leaning more and more against calling any politician "far right" or "far left" in a manner like this. It's better to explore their policies / rhetoric etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand, as I am not quick to attach labels to people unless a body of evidence supports it, which it does. soibangla (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for restoring far-right just now, I forgot about this discussion, including that I had participated in it. soibangla (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I would support wording similar to that found on Janice McGeachin, which states "She belongs to the far-right wing of the Republican Party." If there is consensus to include "far-right," I do not believe it should go in the first sentence of the lede or before American (per MOS:CONTEXTBIO). KidAd • SPEAK 22:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I could be okay with that myself. Curious to hear from more people. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

burying the lede

I note the lead has gone from "far-right" to "right-wing" to "staunch conservative" to nothing, despite Lauren Boebert#Political positions deep in the article saying "far-right" in the first sentence, supported by nine sources.

In the newspaper business, this might be called "burying the lede." I've noticed a recent pattern of this here with certain controversial figures. soibangla (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

No need for conspiracy theories about this occurring across the Wiki, just check the RfC above to note why it is not currently in the lead. Bill Williams 22:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Your response is not helpful as the RfC pertains specifically to "far-right" as opposed to the "staunch conservative" you recently removed. And your suggestion that I am engaged in conspiracy theorizing is not advisable. soibangla (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bill Williams: The RfC hasn't even ended yet, and actually it seems like there's a preponderance of support for including "far right", though not necessarily in the first sentence or paragraph. BirdValiant (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the replies I think it would be important to draw a distinction between replies that say "far-right" in wiki voice vs in attributed voice. Looking at the body of the article it says multiple sources call her far-right. That is an attributed statement. I'm not familiar with the history of this article but it seems the first time "far-right" was in the lead was when soilbangla added it less than a month back [45] (quickly reverted). It was added in Wiki-voice even though the body of the article always attributes "far-right". Thus the lead wasn't following the body. It's also not really fair to present this as if "far-right" were the stable version of the lead since it was added less than a month back. It would be more accurate to say it went from a stable lead without the label to "far-right" to ... etc etc. Springee (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)