Talk:Lauren Boebert/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC about adding "far-right" to the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The RfC was centred around the issue of whether we include the "far-right" descriptor to Boebert's article. The supporting side has presented numerous sources to support the label, including those already present in the article, and I am convinced by the argument (whether that's extreme right or far-right doesn't matter that much), and it was enough for me to determine that there is rough consensus for the label to be included in the lead. However, several people have noted that such value-laden labels should be avoided. The relevant policy, MOS:TERRORIST, says that Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. (emphasis mine). The reliable sources are there, but the Manual of Style asks us to attribute this, and since we are not speaking of David Irving-like levels of scholarly/newsorg consensus about contentious labels, please attribute it. There seems to be consensus not to include this in the first sentence of the lead. Lastly, in reference of the comments that the far-right politics wikilink directs to political perspectives not representative of Boebert - this might be a problem of over-emphasis on the extreme versions of far-right politics in the lead, but this is not a problem of the article about Boebert, the solution to that is fixing the wikilinked article. The lead would certainly be improved if her political views are expanded upon in the lead so that the reader knows the reasons why she might be called a far-right politician by the media. Therefore, include a few sentences describing her political views in detail. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the article on Lauren Boebert, member of the U.S. House of Representatives, say in the lead that she is a far-right politician? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Whether to include "far-this" or "far-that" has arisen in other articles recently. WP:BLP states "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." My observation is that Boebert is commonly described as "far-right" in reliable sources, this is a defining characteristic, and it belongs in the lead. Maybe we need to seek a broader policy clarification at WP:BLPN. soibangla (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. She is commonly described as far-right in reliable sources, local (Colorado) as well as national and international ones. Nine sources are cited in in the article, here are another six, from the New York Times to Associated Press, most of them very recent: Associated Press, 12/6/21, The Atlantic, 12/6/21, Business Insider, 11/29/21, NYT 11/29/21, NPR 29/11/21, ABC News, 12/3/21. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support the inclusion of the phrase "far-right wing of the Republican party" which is, as noted by KidAd in the above conversation, already present at Janice McGeachin. As pointed out in that conversation and already, there are many reliable sources which describe Boebert as far-right. In my opinion, to not include such descriptions when they are commonly used by reliable sources is a disservice to readers by omitting relevant and accurate information. I disagree with Muboshgu's (paraphrased) "leaning against calling politicians [a label] and exploring rhetoric instead" because I think it just makes things worse for any article on an individual. Imagine, for example, if the Ken Ham lede didn't label him as a young Earth creationist in the lede because some people consider the label contentious in some way, and instead "explored" his various beliefs such as a ~6000 year-old Earth, actual global flood, etc. and let the reader come to their own conclusion that he's a young Earth creationist. I don't agree with that idea at all. BirdValiant (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  BirdValiant, "young Earth creationist" is far more descriptive than "far-right". I think we should be focusing on "how" Boebert is far-right. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

So, extreme far right, considering that the "Republican Party has lurched towards populism and illiberalism" (Spectator), or just louder and flashier? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla, BirdValiant, Muboshgu, I didn't notice until now that the above discussion continued after the break. Should I withdraw this RfC? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It's an extension but might as well keep the RfC, so that we can get more input. BirdValiant (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You started this independent of the section above? I thought someone from that discussion had decided to create the RfC as a natural escalation. Please don't withdraw it, it's good to hold. Let's see where this goes. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support to an extent. Some of her views are classified as far right, whilst some of her views are just right-wing. I think that there can be synthesis between those two positions, however. I would opt for naming her political persuasions and then just saying that she holds some far right views. This could look like, and purely as an example, "Boebert is a libertarian conservative who holds far-right views in relation to immigration." This allows for the most precision, in my opinion. Nauseous Man (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per extensive sourcing describing her that way in an uncontroversial manner. In addition to the citations above, see eg. [1][2][3]. These are high-quality sources, describing her as far-right in the article voice; and I don't think anyone has suggested (or introduced any sources supporting the idea) that the descriptor is actually controversial or contested in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Aoi recently reverted this addition and EvergreenFir commented on it earlier, and as I have said, this has no benefit to readers. A hyperlink to the "far-right" article produces a list of positions held by Nazis, including "authoritarian" and "racial supremacism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic," none of which are used by reliable sources to describe Boebert. Her being labeled "far-right" belongs in the body, with a description of precisely why sources have referred to her this way, for example due to her opinions surrounding Trump and militias. The only thing sources have ever described her comments as are Islamophobic, not the numerous other Nazi positions that the far-right article leads to. Calling her far-right a few words into the article does absolutely nothing to benefit readers, while it paints a completely misleading picture of her if they actually click on the hyperlink. Bill Williams 02:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Nauseous Man, BirdValiant regarding your views on the issue, I think that they necessitate a detailed description in the body, along with other information on her political positions. It would take up too much space in the lead to describe precisely why she has been described far-right for her positions on specific things, while putting "far-right" with a hyperlink a few words into the lead would mislead readers into thinking she is a Nazi or some derivative, considering most readers who click on the hyperlink would simply see a list of various Nazi positions that the sources do not claim she holds. Bill Williams 02:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Bill, how Wikipedia defines 'far-right' is off-limits for the purposes of this Rfc, because *this* article must be based on what reliable sources say about Boebert, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and so may not be included in that evaluation. Please base your argument exclusively on what the reliable sources say about her. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The entire article does not state a single time as to what "far-right" specifically refers to regarding her, so yes, the only definition of far-right that any reader will get is the one provided by the hyperlink to the far-right article. Every single position described in the lead of the far-right article does not apply to Boebert whatsoever, and therefore it is extremely inaccurate to link that in the lead, while in the body further explanation could be given as to her specific positions. Bill Williams 23:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose while I agree that many reliably news sources (who many or may not lean left) refer to her as far right wing, the Wikipedia definition defines far right as political views based on "being anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, and having nativist ideologies and tendencies" and " Far-right politics can lead to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, or genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture, or conservative social institutions." I have not see any of her policies that advocate for these types of out comes.Tepkunset (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Wow! That describes her pretty well. She's a far-right loose canon. -- Valjean (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Your opinion that she is a "loose canon" does not outweigh the fact that not a single reliable source has described any specific position of hers as any of those Nazi level things or far-right, only a couple occasionally call her far-right without any relation to legitimately far-right people like Nazis. Bill Williams 22:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  Tepkunset, voting 'oppose' is a valid position to take, but basing it on what the Wikipedia definition is, is not valid, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Whatever wording we use in an article must correspond *only* to what the reliable sources say, and that does not include Wikipedia. Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support, probably in second sentence. RS describe her that way, and her extremely irresponsible actions and statements confirm that she's a far-right loose canon. Although her extreme views are very briefly mentioned in the body, that could be covered better there. -- Valjean (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose describing her as far-right in the first sentence, but support stating in the lead (somewhere other than the first sentence) that sources have described her as having far-right political views, similar to how the article on Trumpism states that sources have referred to that ideology as an "American variant of the far right." Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Just want to clarify: My support is limited to a statement stating that sources have described her as having far-right political views. I do not support stating this in Wikipedia's voice and I largely agree with Springee's comments below. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose describing her as far-right in the first sentence but support stating in the lead. I completely agree with Aoi (青い) here and have made this clear in the discussion above. KidAd • SPEAK 21:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support: not in first sentence, per Aoi and KidAd: "A far-right member of the Republican Party..." soibangla (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Per the weight of the sources. I'd say that the best location is probably the second sentence, "...a far-right member of the House..." or "...a member of the far-right wing of..." would work well, but I'm open to other options. Far-right should not be wikilinked to far right, but described per the sources in the body of the article. If necessary, an anchor link within the article could be used instead... in fact, I think that would be best, if only to discourage others from wikilinking far right.. Fieari (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support If sources describe her as a far-right politician, so she would we. But we should explicitly explain why she is regarded as one. My personal impression is that she regularly expresses xenophobic rhetoric, but has not advocated any particularly authoritarian policies. Dimadick (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Did a quick survey of sources that take a longer look at Boebert (including quite critical opinion pieces) [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Not seeing any consensus in them describing her this way. At most they say she has been associated with people from the far-right, far-right conspiracy theories or (less often) far-right views which could be worked later into the lead. But the lead already says she's a Republican so isn't it a tautology to describe her as far-right too? Vladimir.copic (talk)

For a moment there, I thought someone had updated Republican Party (United States) by adding "far-right" to Its 21st-century ideology is American conservatism but no, the lead still mentions only social and fiscal conservatism. Three of the sources you mention, CBS, The Guardian, and the Los Angeles Times were written in June and July 2020, after the Republican primaries and before Boebert’s election, when relatively little was known about her except the pistol-packing and her finding Q-Anon "interesting". Two others do mention her "extreme right-wing politics" (Independent. But that is hardly where Ms Boebert's troubled history with law enforcement and extreme right-wing politics began. The Congresswoman rose to notoriety despite dragging a history of criminal troubles, financial malfeasance, and association with militias and conspiracy theories; "her brand of far-right defiance as a conspiracy theorist" (NY Times: 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). The final two are not about her politics but about her public appearance. Washington Post: This is an analysis of her public persona (mean bully and troll). Mother Jone: About her behavior ("bigoted comments", "irresponsible and racist remarks", it seems as if at last Boebert has found her sweet spot in leaning heavily into post- 9/11 racist stereotypes about Muslims). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

"Extreme right" does not equal far-right precisely in its use by the Independent, Mother Jones cannot be used as a source on contentious issues like this as it is "highly partisan" and that quote still does not call her far-right, and NYT/WaPo are the only major reliable sources to call her far-right multiple times, but not a single time do they describe a single one of her positions as being far-right like the various ones listed in the article Far-right politics, so it is extremely misleading to hyperlink that a few words into the article. Bill Williams 22:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion in the first paragraph. Other articles on congresspeople who are notable for having political views outside the usual Democratic-Republican spectrum may serve as useful templates. At Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, her political views aren't mentioned until the fourth and last paragraph of the lead, with the label "progressive." At Rashida Tlaib, her political views aren't mentioned until the second paragraph of the lead, with the label "left wing." At Ilhan Omar, her political views aren't given a label in the lead at all; the article merely states her position on specific issues in the second paragraph. This article should follow the same formula as those articles. Neutral on whether it should be mentioned in the second paragraph. Mlb96 (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The Squad is clearly sourced as supporting the abolition of the police, prisons, and border authorities, which is obviously anarchy because every single law is unenforceable, yet somehow that is not far-left or in any of their articles? [11] only 15% support this far-left position because 15/50 is less than even a third of left-leaning Americans. It makes absolutely no sense as to how "far-right" can be a few words into this article, hyperlinked to a bunch of Nazi positions that not a single source describes Boebert as having, when numerous sources describe every far-left congressperson as having specific far-left views but never call them personally far-left. Bill Williams 22:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Why did you format this as a response to me? It has nothing to do with what I wrote. Mlb96 (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
      • It is referring to precisely who you mentioned... The Squad is composed of who you mentioned, AOC, Tlaib, Omar and others, and my point is that their positions are never labeled with some vague term like "far-left" in the lead of their articles, so that should not be the case here either. I wasn't specifically replying to you but simply commenting in general relating to what you said. Bill Williams 15:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for the first paragraph. I support and would prefer "radical right" to be written in the lede instead (if its sourced and due), otherwise far-right is fine too. If added, my proposal for the inclusion would be something like "Boebert is a part of the radical right/far-right wing of the Republican Party". --Vacant0 (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Well supported by numerous reliable sources. I have no qualm with the inclusion coming in the first line, but anywhere in the lede is fine. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support Well-sourced and relevant to the subject. No preference for first line or somewhere in the lead, so the closer can count it as essentially 2 supports for both outcomes. ValarianB (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support per Dimadick. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 02:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Would something denoting her position within the US political spectrum specifically be an acceptable compromise? E.g. "Boebert sits on the far right of the American political spectrum" or the "far right flank of the Republican Party" etc. This helps avoid the concern expressed above over Nazism. Reliable sources cited above tend to discuss Boebert exclusively within the realm of US politics, and other articles like this in the Atlantic discuss the intraparty conflicts over her. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

WhinyTheYounger that is definitely preferable to simply calling her "far-right" since as you said that article mostly talks about Nazism, which sources do not describe her as following. The article could say that she is "on the far-right of the republican party" and link to the "Radical right (United States)" article. Bill Williams 01:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bill Williams: You are still running off the mistaken notion that Wikipedia itself is a source, which it is not WP:WINRS as has been pointed out before. Therefore @WhinyTheYounger: there is no reason to compromise when the idea has already been refuted. BirdValiant (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you never read a single page on Wikipedia? When readers see the "far-right" hyperlink and click it, it leads them to a page talking about Nazism, which not a single source says Boebert believes in. Hyperlinking that a few words into the lead implies she is a Nazi, which she is not. The only thing mistaken and refuted is how you think people read Wikipedia, which is apparently by never clicking on a hyperlink. Bill Williams 18:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

All of the sources calling her "far-right" are relative to other congresspeople or the United States, not to the world, so it should hyperlink to the article on the "radical right" in the U.S. Almost the entirety of Africa and the Middle East is far more "right wing" in terms of executing people for things like homosexuality[12][13], which not a single U.S. congressperson supports, but that is a different perspective, so we do not call every African or Middle Eastern leaders "far-right" in their articles because while they are far-right relative to the world, they are not relative to their own countries. Bill Williams 18:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose along the lines of Aoi and others. We should not describe her as far-right in wiki voice in part because such descriptions are subjective and we can't be certain what subjective definition the sources are using. However later in the lead saying she is described as far right for [brief summary] makes sense. Springee (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the end of the lead can state that she has "been described as far-right" with a hyperlink to "Radical right (United States)" since that article is specifically describing the "far-right" that the media is referring to, but simply calling her "far-right" in Wikivoice when she is rarely ever described as such is highly misleading. Bill Williams 22:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Additional point: The body of the article does not call her "far-right" in Wikivoice. It does attribute the claim to others. As such the lead should not include the claim in Wiki voice regardless of where it might appear in the lead. Springee (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support Lots of sources say so, and that should be enough. Rejecting that because one associates that with Nazis is silly. It tries to second-guess reliable sources, which is what we should not do. The people involved in the 20 July plot, who tried to kill Hitler, were far-right too. Wikipedia users' lack of knowledge should not prevent addition of words those users do not understand. See WP:CIR. Reliable sources trump Wikipedia users' uninformed opinions. I repeat: Reliable sources trump Wikipedia users' uninformed opinions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in the first paragraph of the lead (agree with Springee and Bill Williams' comments, controversial / pejorative labels should be used with caution). A more detailed explanation can be inserted into the body, or at the end of the lead. --Martopa (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The inclusion seems to be only used as a pejoritive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktory02 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

POV push?

@VQuakr: You reverted four edits with the claim "POV push, removal of cited content". Which one of my edits is the alleged POV push? Aside from that, two sentences in the third paragraph of the lead using the adjective "staunch" is awkward, and the first one is only repeating what the first paragraph already says, as I summarized here, and other editors ([14], [15]) have argued linking to "Far-right politics". The WP article offers a very narrow definition of the term "far right" (i.e., the Tiki torch-bearing lot chanting "Jews will not replace us") that isn't used by reliable sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I think Quakr's edits look fine, I'm going to link the far-right hyperlink to "Radical right (United States)" since that is a more specific and accurate article, as that's what the news media is referring to. Bill Williams 20:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I also removed the unnecessary sentence on gun-rights activism since it already says that twice in the lead, and removed the term "staunch" next to "ally". Bill Williams 20:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

No issue with removing "A staunch conservative," to avoid repetition. The link to Far-right politics should stay (more precisely, Space4Time3Continuum2x's proposed change to the link while discussion is ongoing in the section above is contested). I prefer the "although" phrasing. The proposed change to the Factcheck characterization is over simplistic, and not an accurate summary what the source says. VQuakr (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Bill, I disagree with [16] because I think guerilla linking to Radical right (United States) is a step in the wrong direction. If there are issues with our article on Far-right in the US, that should be addressed at that article. It isn't a reason to unlink it here. VQuakr (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"our article on Far-right in the US" is literally "Radical right (United States)"; that is the only article specifically on the far-right in the United States, and therefore should be the specific one hyperlinked. Boebert is not the same as far-right in Europe where many hated Jews, or the Middle East or Africa where the vast majority support executing gay people, so the general article should not be hyperlinked. Bill Williams 21:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bill Williams: Yes, we all know your opinion on this by now. It's been the same argument for what, weeks now. I'm going to stick my head out here a little bit since maybe someone will say "oh that's not civil", but personally, I'm getting a little tired of looking at my Watchlist and seeing the same person making the same argument on the same talk page for weeks now. I feel like I'm in the movie Groundhog Day. BirdValiant (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Bill, I sincerely do not understand your position on why one or the other is appropriate, considering there seems to be a growing consensus here that both can fit. Why push so much for the removal of one? Why not both? - Tyrone (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to, the only thing I "pushed" for was to have "Radical right (United States)" hyperlinked instead of "Far-right politics" since one is much more accurate to Boebert than the other, and you cannot "have both" because you can't have two hyperlinks on one word. Bill Williams 17:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not see that as the original argument. I thought we were strictly talking about categories here. In terms of categories, I would say both. Does that seem agreeable based on current RS within the article or shall we even more thoroughly cite these designations where appropriate considering that an undercited article with these designations could be seen as POV pushing by some? Tyrone (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Bill's right about which pipelink is right for the job. America has its own dichotomies. Stonings, beheadings and gassings of political opponents and undesirables just don't fly there, it's more a "war" of clips, memes and snippets (with some occasional partisan violence). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Moar sources to use (scholarly/books)

[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] Most of the content is already in the article. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Birthday is Inaccurate

Lauren Boebert's birthday is December 19, 1986, according to her official twitter: https://twitter.com/repboebert?lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jssettle (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Bias

In line with most Republicans, she seeks to ban elements of school curricula that contain what she says is "critical race theory" and advocates minimizing immigration to the United States. 2601:196:4900:ACA0:14A0:E798:E215:81F9 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

And? Is that not true? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

So what's the "bias"? Jibal (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Husband's arrest (again)

@OgamD218: Per this revert, please take a look at Talk:Lauren Boebert/Archive 1#Husband's arrest for exposure (a conversation that I was not involved in). This topic was discussed there previously and there was no consensus for inclusion.

Also, if you're going to accuse me of violating a policy, I'd appreciate it if you'd point to the exact policy I've broken. Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Education

For members of Congress isn’t there some mention of the member’s education on their wiki page? Where did she graduate from high school and go to college? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:21F0:28E0:6DCD:E187:998C:8F97 (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

She had a GED certificate made in 2020, as mentioned in the footnote, but she first dropped out of high school in Rifle. She didn't go to college (at least yet). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Bias

This article has made conclusions that are not relevant to being factual, but are instead, more judgmental, in nature. Obviously, it was written by someone from the LEFT. 199.187.161.12 (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Be more specific about what you want changed and why. --Pokelova (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that your comment exhibits bias. Jibal (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The question is whether the reader views the contents as a list of Boebert’s accomplishments or her failures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bticho (talk • contribs) 03:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be written by someone from the far-right since it is not indicated that she is an extremist in the first sentence. best, someone from europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.246.105 (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

"Trumps 'false' claims"!? Give me a break. The ballot box stuffing videos are at last coming out. Drop the word 'false' and it would read more accurately. It was a bought and paid for election with Zuckerbucks as anyone except a left wing communist shill would know. Chbaines (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This has been adjudicated multiple times. These claims are false, Josh Hawley. 173.68.0.4 (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Imagine still existing in 2022 under the "trump never lies" delusion 73.62.184.213 (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Her Birthday is December 19, 1986

Her birthday has been repeatedly miscited as December 15, 1986. Her correct birthday is December 19, 1986 as confirmed on her official twitter bio https://twitter.com/repboebert?lang=en. Additionally, I called her office to confirm, and they shared their frustration about the repeated miscites of her birthday on other media sources and confirmed that her correct birthday is in fact December 19, 1986. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jssettle (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, as per sources - although it should be noted that the date of the 15th is still supported by police reports, which claim either 15th or 19th. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Year of marriage to Jayson Boebert

I found a source that Lauren married her husband in 2007 [28] rather than 2005. Is there a source for the latter? 2A0A:A540:7B8:0:7922:F0B0:1803:D3D7 (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources seem to bounce between both 2005 and 2007 from what I can see, it varies. Jayson Boebert, Lauren Boebert’s Husband: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know from heavy.com says 2005 and references it with a link to her campaign site, but the marriage date is no longer mentioned on her About page that I can find. The NY Post, GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert and husband racked up arrests in home district, says 2005 as well. I'm skeptical of 2007, as her oldest child is 16, which puts his birth at 05 or 06. Children born out of wedlock and premarital sex are like a mortal sins for these types of people. ValarianB (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd go with 2007. Until 2008, "recent weddings" was a regular section in the Post Independent, the local newspaper for Glenwood Springs and Garfield County, Colorado ([29]). They may have gotten the info from the county clerk's office; privacy laws may have changed since then. Children born out of wedlock and premarital sex are like mortal sins—there's that, and then there's hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do! According to Boebert, she didn't get religion until she had dipped out of the workforce for a bit to raise her young sons. Judging by various police and newspaper reports, Boebert & hubby had quite the relationship from high school on. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the archived versions of Boebert's campaign website that is cited by heavy.com as the source for the marriage date (they're basically a gossip page, I think). The about page mentions the husband but not the date they were married. The page wasn't changed from 2019 to 2021; it's different now but still no mention. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

Add a mention of the incident where her mother claimed the father was Stan Lane. It could go in the early life section since he may well be the father, but it might be suited better to personal life since it could be counted as an incident that happened later in her life. Anothracountiges (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2022

Post actual proof on this page and not accusation that Boebert is connected to Qanon. 2601:844:4100:6FE0:C91A:B084:6C0D:EBE3 (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC) 2601:844:4100:6FE0:C91A:B084:6C0D:EBE3 (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see cited sources Cannolis (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The "source" you site does NOT describe "close ties" - being invited one time to speak does NOT make a "close ties" relationship. If a democratic senator is invited to speak on a Fox News program, do they then have "close ties" to Fox News. Additionally, the "praised the far-right extremist organization the Proud Boys" is a complete lie. Boebert's "former top aide" posting something on Facebook does NOT EQUATE to Boebert "praising" the group! Please correct the sentence by removing ", Boebert had close ties with far-right groups such as QAnon, whose conspiracy theories she promotes, and praised the far-right extremist organization the Proud Boys.[3]". Attaching a citation like this is NOT good enough, Cannolis. It is NOT "proof" for your statement. 2604:2D80:9194:8000:C122:8707:EEB5:E696 (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Far-right label

I moved the far-right label further up in the introduction next to her name as a politician but the edit was for some reason reversed [1]. Apart from slightly adjusting the wording (the label is already included in the intro!), nothing major was changed. Boebert should be considered in the same group of Republicans as Marjorie Taylor Greene. Can we agree that Boebert's status as a far-right politician in the House is an indisputable fact? If yes, why not place the label next to her profession? NikolaosFanaris (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

1. Moving material into the first sentence of a contemporary politics BLP is always going to be contentious.

2. No, you didn't just move it. The actual proposed edit changed it from a sourced opinion to a label in WP:WIKIVOICE. Why are you claiming otherwise here?

3. No, we don't agree this is a good change.

4. Even if we did agree this was a good change, you still can't make it since this exact subject has already been the subject of a RfC, at Talk:Lauren Boebert/Archive 2#RfC about adding "far-right" to the lead. You need a clear consensus from a discussion with a similar level of involvement and visibility to establish that consensus has changed per WP:CONLEVEL. VQuakr (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

FN, this was covered by a recent RfC here "far-right"_to_the_lead. Your edit violates the RfC closing and thus is against consensus. Springee (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I have added the refs that were deleted to the mention in the body and split off her denial with its own reference. The efforts to whitewash her extremist far-right leanings and positions are worrying and unwikipedian. Instead, per WP:PRESERVE, deletionists should seek to fix and improve the issues they raise. Instead, they just delete and protect her (this deletionist pattern extends to other extremist far-right politicians like Candace Owens). They are not seeking to improve this coverage, and that violates the PRESERVE policy. Seek to improve, not completely delete.

If you have the perception to recognize a problem and the energy to complain about it, then rechannel that perception and energy into actually doing something to resolve those issues. Don't just complain. That's irritating and unconstructive. Instead, try writing from your opponent's POV. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I agreed on the removal of the far-right label in the first sentence, as there is no consensus for that (although I find it absolutely ridiculous that we are still debating about the views of an actual conspiracy theorist who constantly promotes extremist notions and insurrection). In regards to your second point, thank you for raising this. There is a continuous pattern by 2-3 users who are deliberately trying to whitewash her extremist positions - same thing applies to Candace Owens. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a long-standing and clear pattern of whitewashing with no effort to actually resolve the problems they complain about. It's classic POV editing, ergo a violation of NPOV. They just delete. That's very unwikipedian and against policy. They tend to protect members of the Freedom Caucus, especially the most radical ones. For more information about these extremists:

1. Turning outrage into power: How the far right is changing the GOP
2. A MAGA squad of Trump loyalists sees its influence grow amid demands for political purity among Republicans
3. The GOP Has Its Own Squad—of Stupid Sycophants and Sickos
4. Meet the pro-Putin Republicans and conservatives]
5. The Pro-Putin Wing of the GOP
6. Republican Idiot Brigade Debuts Dumbest COVID Claims Yet

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: cool it with the partisan rhetoric. Just be plain, and don't basically refbomb here with Vanity Fair, Daily Beast, and "Republican Accountability Project" articles and expect editors to view your approach as impartial; it's not. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The multitude of sources provided above are more than acceptable to support the "far-right" label. ValarianB (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It belongs in the body, having it in the lead adds nothing since the body is where the sufficient context is. Bill Williams 04:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Per the close of the RfC, there is rough consensus for the label to be included in the lead. ... The reliable sources are there, but the Manual of Style asks us to attribute this, and since we are not speaking of David Irving-like levels of scholarly/newsorg consensus about contentious labels, please attribute it. The current mention in the third paragraph attributing "far-right" with "Often described as" is in line with the close. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2022

"She earned a GED certificate in 2020, a month before her first election primary"

There were no GED tests during the peak of CoVid, she had failed twice, she was in the middle of her campaign and successful completion of the 4 GED tests by May 2020 has not been verified.

This should be edited to say that Boebert "claims to have earned a GED, a month before her election primary, but that claim has not been verified" 75.166.139.159 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

MadGuy7023, please provide reliable sources that this claim is correct in the first place, else why is it present in the article? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.105.108 (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

As per source already in the article: "[Boebert] didn’t actually get her GED degree until May of this year, about a month before the June primaries and five months after entering the race." Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Editorializing

Proposal to remove word lacks support. Discussion has moved to behavior stuff that doesn't belong in article talk space. Let's move on.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I removed some blatant editorializing from the article, deleting "false" from "Boebert supports Trump's false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him". User:HappyMcSlappy reverted it with the edit summary, "'false' is a factual statement, not an editorial one". Without detailing the Hunter Biden laptop coverup and the dirty shadow campaign, let us just say calling Trump's claims categorically and unequivocally "false" is at best unencyclopedic, and this sort of persuasive writing is discouraged at MOS:EDITORIAL and WP:NPOV. Moreover, Boebert doesn't feel it's "false", and the article is about her. Imagine writing "Pope Francis supports Christianity's false claims that Jesus rose from the dead". The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Referring to Trump's claims of voter fraud as "false" is not editorializing. It is presented by every reliable source that has analyzed them. I do not think that I need to actually share these citations with you here, do I? Whether she believes them to be true or not does not make them not false. Also Hunter Biden has nothing to do with this, why bring him up at all? (Anyway, lol at calling it a "coverup".) And Jesus? Really? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC) The reverting of your deleted text was correct, and I would have done so myself. ValarianB (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC) @ValarianB: What policy or consensus would guide you to do this? I've provided one which seems to discourage it. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC) The policy you provided does not discourage the existing wording, it discourages the use of editorial wordings. For example, if the passage had read "Trump's heinous claims that...", then removing the word "heinous" would have been supported by that link. But the word "false" is a statement of fact, not an opinion. As for policies that support its inclusion, see WP:ASSERT. Happy (Slap me) 19:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC) It is unnecessary on a BLP, and in this instance, it appears vexatious; Wikipedia should not engage in making people look stupid. It would be like going to the Nancy Pelosi article (and 100 others) and adding "She [falsely] added that Republicans were engaged in a 'cover-up campaign' to protect Trump: 'House Republicans' pattern of obstruction and cover-up to hide the truth about the Trump-Russia scandal'." The Russia scandal was fabricated, and many Democrats spread the lie. There are many reliable sources to support this. But it would be unencyclopedic to bias so many BLPs with this sort of tabloid journalism, just as it is tabloid journalism to add "falsely" in front of what she believes. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't engaging in making someone look stupid - that's a result of them saying things themselves that reliable sources pick up on and we summarize. Do you see how this works? It does not appear your interpretation of sources matches reality. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Reliable sources do not that assert Pelosi lied about a cover-up or the Trump-Russia scandal. If you falsely believe there are, your fitness to edit in this topic area should be scrutinized. ValarianB (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC) WP:RS. ValarianB (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC) How about WP:BLPSTYLE, "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking." Again, "let facts alone do the talking". Magnolia677 (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC) And the facts are, simply, that Lauren Boebert made false statements, as supported by reliable sources. The article reflects the reality. ValarianB (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC) No, she didn't make a "false statement". She supports Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. How is that a false statement? It is certainly a discredited belief, but her support isn't false. The sentence stinks. Even if I swept floors at the DNC for a living and edited Wikipedia secretly in my spare time, I would still say the sentence stinks and needs to be rewritten. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC) I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or having trouble reading the article at this point. The only mentions of her falsely stating something is in regard to COVID, the rest is about her supporting Trump's false claims but you appear to be all over the place with nonsensical arguments to the point it's disruptive. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC) There's plenty of details of Boebert's falsehoods in Lauren Boebert#Certification of 2020 presidential election and Capitol attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Hey Praxidicae, it's the sentence, "Boebert supports Trump's false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him". Magnolia677 (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Yes, and that is supported by several reliable sources. And my point is in response to your previous comment which is wholly incorrect. And you literally just quoted the article, supported by what I already said, contrary to what you said, proving yourself wrong. Seriously, are you trolling now? This is an insane level of incompetence or WP:IDHT. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC) For posterity, you stated a few minutes ago: No, she didn't make a "false statement". She supports Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. How is that a false statement? When the entire article and sentence that you're disputing do not say that she made the false statement - only that she supports Trump's false claim, which as far as I can tell, is adequately supported in the exact quote you gave. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC) And Pope Francis supports Christianity's claim that Jesus rose from the dead. That's true, he does believe that. Should we add "false" before the word "claim"? Of course not, because it's not our job as editors to make the subject of a BLP look stupid, even if what they believe is not true. Then sentence needs to be re-worked. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Do you really not understand the difference between religious lore and patently false statements that are demonstrably untrue? In either case, I believe the answer from you is going to be no and this leads me to further believe you are unfit to opine on, much less edit this article and will be suggesting a topic ban at ANI shortly. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Praxidicae, I have made one edit to this article. One. And you want to go to ANI because I'm saying things on a talk page that makes you uncomfortable? Don't you dare try to intimidate me. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Your disruption here is still disruption, regardless of whether it's on a talk page or mainspace (and there are other places where you've caused similar disruption) but your ardent denial of facts when presented with sources and statements that you've made that contradict yourself are great cause for concern and now you've wasted 4 editors time with a ridiculous conversation. So yeah, I think a topic ban is appropriate. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC) And when you go to ANI and they ask you why you didn't start at WP:BLPN, what are you going to say? That putting forward arguments to remove the word "false" are so outrageous, such an affront to our sensibilities that banning them from further participation is the only solution. Oh please. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Why on earth would I start anything at BLPN when you are the only person here arguing this? You are literally arguing against demonstrated, printed, black and white facts in reliable sources, while simultaneously claiming the article says something it doesn't and never has. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC) In fact, I'm not the only one; this IP editor made the same request. Pay attention. I can't make sense of your second point, though I did try to explain this to you once already. Anyway, I'm going to follow HappyMcSlappy's advice below and "eschew further responses"...for now. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC) The IP below said All of the evidence indicated the claim has merit, which is of course not the case. Trump and Boebert have put forth falsehoods, and I'll eschew further responses after this one as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC) I think the arguments made against my reversion have reached a point past which productive discussion cannot be had. The latest response to me (prior to me edit conflicting in attempting to respond to it) contains multiple falsehoods asserted as facts, and the overall argument seems to be that the facts in this matter are no more important than one editor's opinions. There is nothing to be gained from such an argument, so I will no longer be participating in it, and I would advise others to eschew further responses, as well. Happy (Slap me) 20:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC) It’s telling and informative that the initial argument made by the OP up above for removing the term compared it to a religious argument asserting the validity of Christianity. This nicely encapsulates the entire philosophical problem at hand with those who support the GOP. They are asserting that facts, data, evidence, and reality itself should be amenable to and conform with our beliefs—which is the exact opposite of how these things work. It is, of course, our beliefs that must change to conform with the facts. This statement is unimaginable to the OP, because they think that their beliefs determine reality rather than the other way around. In other words, it is not a surprise that the religious right is helping to promote false election claims and objecting to the characterization of such claims as false. To directly address the OP, I personally believe we should describe extraordinary religious claims as false, but we don’t because religious claims are given a get out of jail free card by our dominant culture. We even give them tax breaks for making these false claims and allow them to fleece and grift the public. It’s unconscionable and morally repugnant. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC) I reverted another edit here. Noting here that I agree with similar statements above that the use of the word "false" is this context is factual and not editorializing. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

American Muckrakers PAC

FYI, PAC that posted Madison Cawthorn video now aims to ‘fire’ Lauren Boebert. Given the impact this group had on Madison Cawthorn (detailed hereand here, this may merit a mention here in the days to come. ValarianB (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

We must not touch this until reliable sources do. soibangla (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

A reliable source already has, as noted above. I'm not in any way suggesting an addition now, just getting us prepped for landing. ValarianB (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Muckrakers provided three images of Boebert in their provided exchange. One of those images has already been debunked. It has positively been identified as Melissa Carone, not Boebert. This does not bode well for any other claims made in a text message conversation from an unknown person. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that nobody has reposted the specific allegations that they made, which circulated on Twitter yesterday, on this talk page. Those allegations are serious WP:BLP violations, unless some equally serious evidence is provided to back them up. If one of their photos has already been debunked, that is indeed not good for them. I will be extra quick to sanction anyone who repeats the specifics of that press release on here, unless there is solid proof with it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed that someone had put it IN the article. Smh. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's a piece from The Daily Beast taking these rumors to task. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

What does it mean to sanction somebody? How do you have that authority? What's wrong with attributing the information to American Muckrakers PAC? Wouldn't adding the information be a form of "editing boldly"? Sun Adder (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Muboshgu is an administrator, which you can see by looking at their user page. They have been vested by the community with the authority to sanction users who violate WP policy and do not seem willing to cease their behavior. In this specific case, these allegations -if not widely reported on by much more prominent sources than the Daily Beast and Yahoo News- represent a particularly egregious BLP violation. Attributing them merely mitigates, but doesn't correct the problem. If I were an admin, I would also sanction anyone who added those to this page, and I say that as someone who believes Boebert to be an egregiously immoral character and entirely unfit for any public office. Happy (Slap me) 21:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Please give me an example of more prominent sources. Sun Adder (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head, there's CNN, The New York Times, Time Magazine, MSNBC, Fox News, The Washington Post, NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, NPR the list goes on... Happy (Slap me) 22:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot BBC News, The Associated Press and Reuters. Happy (Slap me) 22:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Fox News just published a story saying Boebert intends to take legal action against American Muckrakers for posting their story. That's one of the prominent sources you listed. By the way, is there a list of agreed upon prominent sources on Wikipedia that I can refer to? If not, how is this determined? Here's the link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/lauren-boebert-taking-legal-action-212358738.html Sun Adder (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Sun Adder, the fact that she is suing complicates the story. I'll bring this up at WP:BLP/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment away at WP:BLP/N#Lauren Boebert. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

[Outdent]

I posted this at the BLP noticeboard, but will repeat it here: We can, in my opinion, include the content at this point because of a Mother Jones article, who are WP:GREL. From that article: “The political action committee that helped bring down Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) has released a series of salacious and likely false accusations against Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.)”. I would word it like this:

Accusations about Boebert's personal life were released by a political action committee and widely spread on social media. Those accusations appear to be completely false.

However, I will not add anything until we build up consensus. Not for something this close to the WP:BLP third rail. Samboy (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Although I happen to agree with the opinions expressed, that Mother Jones article is an opinion piece. Cullen328 (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Over at WP:BLP/N#Lauren Boebert, consensus is not to add these claims yet. Samboy (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2022

(Redacted). Empoweredtranswoman (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Not done: requires consensus. This story is pretty recent, but the accusations have been covered by Newsweek, The Daily Beast, and Salon. They seem to suggest the accusations are bogus, and, without better sources, I doubt there will be a consensus to include anything. ––FormalDude talk 22:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note to @Gene93k and Valjean: I think this is permissible for a talk page, but if you still want to revert after my answer, feel free. ––FormalDude talk 22:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude, BLP also applies to talk pages, and this is a very serious allegation from a horrible source. It should be revdeleted. Seriously. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

REVDEL applied. No BLP violations on talk pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That was fast! I was altering my comment, so here it is. There is a way to do this that complies with policy. The only way to include this is by following WP:PUBLICFIGURE and using those three RS to document the allegation and how it is false. This will serve to clear the record and debunk the apparent smear campaign against her, even if she deserves all exposures of her horrible personal life and hypocrisy, as she is a horrible person, IMO. But here we can only use RS and must follow BLP, especially PUBLICFIGURE, which does require us to document even false allegations if they have been covered by multiple RS, and that is the case here. So I say we include it, but only by carefully following that policy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary on my watchlist. I don't know that the allegation is yet noteworthy, relevant, and well documented. Yes, there were RS that covered it to debunk it, but I don't think this has spread enough to the point where we should include it. Many people would be reading it for the first time here, which should not be the case. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand and won't push for inclusion unless more RS cover it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

"the church is supposed to direct the government"

is an absolutely astonishing assertion and is certainly leadworthy. Maybe something else can come out if lead size is of concern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Boebert&curid=64429315&diff=1095975646&oldid=1095970149

soibangla (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Being merely "astonishing" is not enough to justify putting something in the lead. She has said many such things and the lead can't document them all. What's the RS coverage looking like? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Profound ignorance of one of the core founding principles of America, and promoting its opposite, is something I think we should make room for in the lead.

• "GOP Rep. Boebert: 'I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk'". WaPo. June 28, 2022.
• "The Founding Fathers of the United States intended that "the church is supposed to direct the government."". PolitiFact. June 30, 2022.
• "Lauren Boebert told congregation she's "tired of this separation of church and state junk"". Denver Post. June 27, 2022.
• "Boebert says she is 'tired' of separation between church and state: 'The church is supposed to direct the government'". The Hill. June 28, 2022.
• "Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert says she's 'tired of this separation of church and state junk'". Deseret News. June 28, 2022.
• "Boebert's call to collapse separation of church and state spurs alarm". Axios. June 29, 2022.
• "The Christian Right is winning cultural battles while public opinion disagrees". NPR. July 1, 2022.
• "Rep. Lauren Boebert Calls Separation of Church and State 'Junk,' Says Church Should Direct Government". People. June 29, 2022.
• "Lauren Boebert complains that she is "tired of this separation of church and state junk"". Salon. June 29, 2022.

soibangla (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with soibangla, I'd say this is very much WP:DUE, especially given all of the recent SC rulings and it's highly relevant in at least American politics since she swore an oath to uphold the constitution but is explicitly doing the opposite... PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The first amendment protects her right to say whatever batshit crazy thing she wants to say (short of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater). This strikes me as just theater. I'm wary of giving too much digital ink to crazy talk like this. Their playbook is (1) say crazy thing, (2) wait for the left to freak out about said crazy thing, (3) fundraise off of the juiciest quotes from the left in an email titled "the left is trying to cancel me!" But what's the actual impact of what she's saying? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It was me who removed it, so a ping to let me know about discussion would have been nice. Anyhoo - I'm not averse to the inclusion per se - it's just that there's already so much in the relevant lede paragraph that discusses her extremism that in what way - to a potentially non-American audience - does this stand head & shoulders above anything else she's come out with? As a non-American myself, the above statement is merely one of a long list of bewildering comments she's made.

However - I'll concede that as per soibangla's comment above with sources, this seems to have struck a particular nerve with those over the pond. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean I don't disagree with you that it's protected speech but I'd say in someone serving "the people" who swore an oath, it's extremely relevant. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for neglecting to ping you, Chaheel Riens. Yes, enabling the trolling/fundraising ploy is always problematic, they use the media they hate to promote themselves, but here we have a growing wave of American Christian nationalists who insist the Constitution is an extension of the Bible and demand the government be run on Christian principles, and Boebert's statement was among the most overt expressions of this, and by a member of Congress, not just some podcaster.[30] People believe this, and it's a very BFD:

"The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our founding fathers intended it. And I am tired of this separation of church and state junk. It's not in the Constitution."

• "The Christian Right is winning cultural battles while public opinion disagrees". NPR. July 1, 2022. soibangla (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Muboshgu, this isn't just crazy talk to get a rise out of the left. These right-wing conservative religious zealots really want to make America a "Christian nation" in the same sense that Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran are "Muslim nations" guided by Sharia law. If they succeed, they will end up restoring stoning as a death penalty for adultery and disobedient children. (If you really want to get sick, you can find current examples of stoning on YouTube.) They are totally and consciously at odds with the Constitution's Separation of church and state. The actual impact of what she said is indeed to garner more support from her religious base.

They fail to realize that the Founding Fathers' establishment of a secular government, that guaranteed the religious rights of all beliefs/non-beliefs, made American religious freedom a beacon to the whole world of how it can be done without the religious persecution that inspired many, if not most, of the first pioneers to flee to this country in the first place. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, despite removing the section before and expressing concerns over the size and notability of the lede section, I have to say that the recent addition of a new paragraph seems to be a great addition. There does seem to be enough brouhaha to warrant mention, and the separation flows well. I still think the lede is starting to get a bit big, but not only am I happy with the addition, but would defend it to others opposed. For what my opinion is worth, of course. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I have condensed the new paragraph to a sentence or two in the lead because it is excessive in proportion to her other statements about policy. Certainly worth being in the lead, but since that the paragraph in the body is a short one, we shouldn't be expanding too much on that particular aspect. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

This comment was made recently, and there's no reason to think it will turn out to be an important part of the subject's political career. I see no reason to quote from it in the lead when it is quoted in the body. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, because I now feel differently. I originally felt that it wasn't lede-worthy, but after the above discussion and a little learning myself, I feel it is. It seems that the crux of the issue is not that it's a wacky comment - of which there is no shortage - but that it directly goes against one of the core American constitutional beliefs - the separation of church and state. Boebert has made a direct and incontrovertible statement that she opposes this part of the constitution, and for a politician sworn to uphold said constitution - that's a pretty bold and controversial thing to say. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

So we should include it because you think it was bad? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

First, please take care to explain your reverts (the second one, I mean), and the reason you want to revert something that no one has written about at all, i.e. the time between New Year 2022 and the primary, which she won.

Secondly, the answer to that is: "if it is covered in the body, it should be covered in the lead": see MOS:LEAD: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The coverage has been extensive, the remarks have sparked controversy and were deemed to be impossible to implement under the current Constitution (at least from the sources I've seen). And whether she meant it or was simply posturing for fellow evangelists is irrelevant because whatever the motivation, it was a statement of a public person (a congresswoman!) in a public place in an assembly of churchgoers that outlines an important aspect of the policy she prefers, that of influence of religion on the govt (or makes other believe that she prefers, who knows?).

And well, even if what Muboshgu says is true (that the message is used to promote her in the MSM and then take the fragments she considers the worst), I think George Wallace is a good example - moderate turned hardcore segregationist because of his loss in the primary. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Given the comment is quoted (in full, I think) in the body, I would support paraphrasing the comment briefly in the lead. Something like: A self-described born-again Christian, Boebert made controversial comments in June 2022 against the separation of church and state and argued that the Church should direct government's decisionmaking. Thoughts? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I'm not necessarily against this version, but I think that the quote where she explicitly says that the separation of church and state is trash is better than that somewhat vague paraphrase of that quote. "Controversial" can mean anything from a black humour joke on live TV to Watergate, so we'd better show how much exactly this is controversial.

Also, I stand by my version "widely considered" against the Establishment Clause, rather than "is against...". Even though some fringe organisations, such as Wallbuilders, argue about the same things that Boebert already does, but to say something is illegal, we should better have either several law scholars say that in the press or a decent law review article. Also, we never know with the court the US has what these guys are up to. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Soibangla is right: her opinion is "not "widely considered" contrary, it IS contrary, it IS in the Constitution". Just because it's "widely considered" does not change the fact that it is VERY much against the Constitution. Period. There is really no misunderstanding of that among Constitutional scholars. (BTW, we don't say it's "illegal".)

Her statement reveals a serious failure to understand the Constitution she has sworn to protect ("It's not in the Constitution,"), a resistance and opposition to it, and a desire to allow her version of religion to govern the lives of all Americans, including atheists. Her "freedom" will extend further than "my nose", ergo she wants the freedom to force others to live as she does. She wants to limit others' freedom and dominate them, with the force of law to punish them. Given that power, those like her will use the death penalty. A GOP politician has said that disobedient children should be stoned to death, per Old Testament Biblical laws. These people are serious.

That understanding is a threat to the civil liberties of all Americans. She needs to study the history of European religious persecution and why it motivated so many of the pioneers to flee to America. Even then, the more zealous among them resorted to religious persecution here, and the Founding Fathers (many of whom were irreligious, Deists, atheists, and pretty much all were left-wing liberals) who created the Constitution deliberately included the Establishment Clause to prevent the rise of state-sponsored religious persecution. They wisely established a secular government to administer the most liberal application of religious liberty in history, and it has served believers and unbelievers very well for over 200 years. She wants to fuck that up because she is not content with being allowed to practice her own religion. No, she considers it wrong that the law and Constitution prevent her from persecuting and harming others. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Even if I agree with most of what you wrote, we are not a forum about what should Boebert learn or from where, and neither should we discuss how outrageous the remarks are (unless in the context of sources saying they are outrageous, which I confirm having seen). Also, you are right about "widely considered" not excluding "is", it just sounds somewhat better when I read it. We could reformulate to something like "the consensus among SMEs was that her remarks are outlandish, to be mild". Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆, you're either twisting or misinterpreting my comment. I originally said "that there's already so much in the relevant lede paragraph that discusses her extremism that in what way - to a potentially non-American audience - does this stand head & shoulders above anything else she's come out with?" However, after discussion - and a little learning of the Constitution myself - I now agree that this is indeed a big deal, that it's not just a matter for personal belief and policy - but it's a direct (and very public) contradiction of the very document she swore to uphold as a House Representative. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: More than 10 reverts in less than a few hours by Ficaia. User reported for clear edit-warring. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Top description and Infobox birthdate

Her birthdate in the top description as well as in the infobox says "December 19, 1986" when it should be "December 15, 1986". Yoshidaeri (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

See this archive discussion and this edit where the apparent discrepancy is covered. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2022

Remove the word "False" as it related to Trump's claim of election theft. All of the evidence indicated the claim has merit. 2601:98B:8104:1CA0:D557:DB7E:999A:24B0 (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: In reality, every claim of election theft has been thoroughly debunked. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Have they debunked the theory that the media's suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop may have thrown the election (or as some on the right may say, "stole the election")? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Your obsession with Hunter Biden's laptop is noted, but irrelevant to an article about Lauren Boebert. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

What? If Hunter Biden's laptop is relevant to whether the election was stolen, then it's relevant on whether the word false should be included.

End of the day, wikipedia does not make decisions on these things, it simply takes consensus and that is what is posted. There is clearly not consensus, no matter what the evidence seems to say, that the election being stolen is a totally false statement. Wikipedia authors should not be writing primary research. The claim that "the election was stolen is false" is not sourced in this article. For that reason alone, it should be removed until it is properly sourced. 2600:6C54:7900:CD7:6898:B1CB:ACC9:1BF8 (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The laptop that allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden has no relevance in the 2020 election, or to Boebert. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Even if you wish to protect the claim, that Trumps claims are baseless, you should still adjust the wording. It at least should read, allegedly false claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.212.40.247 (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is to be viewed as neutral, you need to remove the dismissive word "false" before that claim. There is a lot of evidence of problems, which is true in any election but even more true of the one in question. Also, describing Boebert as "far-right" when leftists would never be described as "far Left" on Wikipedia contributes to the notion that Wikipedia is a biased source. The entire article reads more like a Democrat hit piece than an online encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a mass of reliable evidence that shows her "false" accusations to be baseless. As it says in the article: "Multiple sources describe Boebert as far-right, but she rejects the label."

Also note that "rejecting the label" does not mean it's not applicable. As somebody not from the United States, I can perhaps be somewhat more impartial and/or objective than those from Pennsylvania. Fortunately you don't have to take my word for it - that's why Wiki relies on reliable sources instead. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Excessively False Profile

Nearly the entire profile history of her is false. She wasn't born to parents that moved to Colorado. Her underage mother got pregnant by her first cousin, who refuses to acknowledge her.

She met her much older husband as a high school student, became pregnant & dropped out. She did not marry him until after she gave birth to a second child.

The current history is beyond Leave It To Beaver false. 174.252.130.2 (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Provide citations that back up what you say. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I just did some checking, as someone previously unfamiliar with these claims, and largely unfamiliar with the subject prior to the RfC that recently brought me here. As to the claims of paternity, there are a handful of sources that probably clear the WP:RS standard which speak to an apparent contested paternity regarding a professional wrestler "Stan Lane" (See [31], [32]). However, nowhere in any of those which I've seen is there an indication of incest. It's hard to say with any certainty, but I have a suspicion that this is just an internet forum transmission chain error, owing to the fact that one of Lane's cousins was quoted in connection to the matter (it seems she provided a sample to help prove the paternity by way of shared genetics with her), and the parties involved may have become confused in subsequent discussion of the details.

It does seem to be established pretty conclusively that Boebert's mother pursued paternity claims against Lane, but I'm not sure how that in itself is super relevant to our coverage of this subject as a topic of encyclopedic interest. For that matter, I'm not sure how relevant it would be even if the incest claims were true. I understand why this information proliferates online: aside from the general trend to fixate on salacious details, Boebert has apparently been very big on situating a cultivated story about her background as a starting point for attacking social programs. So obviously critics are eager to puncture that story if possible. But we would need much more WP:WEIGHT in sources to make the claim that these details are seen as relevant to an understanding of Boebert generally, or any particular policies or stances she may have (or statements she may have made).

Meanwhile that Boebert was pregnant in high school, dropped out, and only received her GED shortly before becoming a congresswoman are all well-established in sources, but also already covered in this article. I'm not sure that including that her baby's father is "much older" or that she was married (to a different man, according to our sources: the IP seems to be confused on that detail) only after the birth of her second second child would in any way augment understanding of her in terms of her notability as a encyclopedic subject. I suppose insofar as unwed teenage mothers have sometimes historically been targets of American conservative rhetoric in the past, it might be considered ironically relevant to some, but that's an awful stretch as an argument for why it is an important detail--and even if it were subjectively true in the view of some, we still come back the question of whether or not it is WP:DUE in terms of coverage, and I think the answer there (based on what I have seen in my admittedly brief search here), it definitely does not (at least at present).

Again, I understand why a person like Boebert, expressing the beliefs she does, gets extra attention when supposedly salacious details about her background are discovered, but we're here to present an encyclopedic summary of her life and role as a politician, not a blow-by-blow of every little detail of her past which may or may not influence how her political stances are perceived. It's also worth stating for the record that the IP's assertion that "Nearly the entire profile history of her is false" (by which I assume they are referring to the 'early life and education' and possibly also the 'early career' section), is apparently incorrect: as far as I can tell, every statement in those sections is cited to reliable sources and consistent with their details. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to get really into the nitty gritty no-big-deals, one is not exactly meant to put quotation marks around a wrestler's ring name, just the nickname. "Sweet" Stan Lane and "Beautiful" Bobby Eaton, they called 'em. Bit of a misnomer, even at the time. At least that was how the male fans saw it. Legend has it many of their girlfriends, wives and daughters begged to differ (other retellings include some brothers). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort and detailed account of it. On one point, however: I think its reasonable to think that such detail, true or not, is coming to public attention only because of her civic and political importance. Hence, such detail, if properly sourced, very likely would meet our standard for inclusion in whatever terms and weight sources show us. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Specifico. That's largely consistent with my own view. Well let me qualify that just a little: in subjective terms, I don't know that I agree that a detail coming into the public sphere as a result of someone's civic and political importance automatically justifies the intrinsic importance of the detail itself. If we were discussing this matter completely in the abstract (in a more generalized forum of discourse), I think I'd probably disagree as to that assertion. But of course content determinations on Wikipedia do not hinge on the importance we, as the editors, assign topics according to our own idiosyncratic views. As you say (well, as we've both said, to be accurate), the question of whether to include such a detail ultimately comes down to the weight of coverage in RS (both in absolute terms and in relative terms compared against the wider corpus of sources regarding the subject).

So applying that standard that we seem to agree on to these circumstances, a few of the assertions made by the IP could be sourced to RS, but those few were already covered in the article. The rest of the assertions the IP made I could find no reliable sources whatsoever to support--and they are changes likely to be controversial, so we would need multiple, high quality sources to include these details, rather than just a whole bunch of random reddit/twitter speculation. The only detail that is a grey area is the issue of Boebert's own paternity. Regarding the claim that she is the product of incest, there is no reliable source that I found that says anything remotely like that. And I am fairly certain it resulted from amateurish discussion of the actual paternity suit on some open forum or another (I'd be very surprised if it didn't ultimately go back to someone misreading the quote from Lane's actual cousin), and then that detail just got taken for gospel in certain circles because it's the kind of detail credulous people looking for ammunition against their political opposition will easily believe online without looking at the primary sources to confirm--because, you know, the internet. That detail got back to the IP through whatever site they are following discussion about Boebert on, and here we are--only thankfully our process has controls against re-relaying such claims without verification.

Now, as to the remainder of that claim, it seems there was in fact a paternity dispute regarding whether Boebert is the daughter of a professional wrestler, and that detail is covered by at least two RS. Is that enough weight to justify inclusion of this particular detail? In this case, taking all the context surrounding the subject and considering the length, needs, and the relative importance of other due content together, I tend to think no, inclusion is not the right editorial call. That's the way I lean on that question--though, honestly, I don't think it would make or break the quality of the article, either way. Of course, with enough sources discussing it, we would have to address it in the article. But with just two sources, and considering how little direct relevance it has to anything else we discuss in the article? I think it's undue for now, and likely to stay that way. But regardless, I think we can agree that the incest claim (and any other hyper-controversial claim not supported in a single RS) needs to stay out. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Date of birth discrepancy

Date of birth is different in body of wiki versus the summary caption. December 15th vs December 19th 71.167.197.203 (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC: separation of church and state comments

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

---

Should Boebert's comments on separation of church and state be noted in the lead?

Here are her comments:

"The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our founding fathers intended it. And I am tired of this separation of church and state junk. It's not in the Constitution."[33]

Here is our previous discussion. soibangla (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support-ish. Opposing against such a foundational aspect of America principle is pretty significant, but the lede is already feeling a bit stuffed. Something should come out or be shortened in exchange. ValarianB (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Boebert's constitutional ignorance and theocratic leanings are defining characteristics. No objection to shortening the lead some other way, per ValarianB.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support This sort of ignorant christian nationalist rhetoric is one of Boebert's defining characteristics. Covering this particular instance in the lead -in which all the hypocrisy, ignorance, hubris and right-wing extremist beliefs are on display- allows us to accurately and succinctly characterize her politics in the lead. Happy (Slap me) 16:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support This is significant enough for short mention in the lead. The current lead is short enough that no deletions are necessary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes but shortened. Senorangel (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support It's notable, descriptive of her views, and well-sourced in the body of the article. BirdValiant (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Reliable sources are covering it extensively, so it is easily significant enough for the lede. ––FormalDude talk 00:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support.(Summoned by bot) Clearly WP:DUE from the weight of the coverage. And even if Wikipedia did utilize a more subjective standard, it would be hard to argue that such a position would not be a feature of major importance regarding coverage of the article's subject, given this is an aspect that the average reader of this article would likely wish to know about. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support I apologise profusely for being the editor that started this by questioning and removing it here, but after initial discussion and looking into the constitution myself (not US citizen here) it seems apparent that this is not only reliably sourced, but also for good reason - it contradicts the First Amendment of the constitution, which weirdly is something American politicians usually consider sacred. (Religious pun fully intended.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support Boebert supports theocracy and wants to abolish the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (which establishes the separation of church and state). This is a defining aspect of her political career, and likely why she was voted into office in the first place. Dimadick (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Is this a candidate for WP:SNOW, or at least WP:WHENCLOSE and it seems that consensus is in favour? No comments for three days, and all thus-far comments have been in support? Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I've been having a similar notion: if after 7+ days there are still no oppose !votes, I may consider a very tactfully worded procedural close, unless someone here raises an objection. There is uniform response and even the party who first disputed the addition has come to being in favor of it, so I think it will be uncontroversial, even as a quick close, and one conducted by a party who had already responded to the inquiry via FRS. Afterall, the this is just one more topic utilizing the resources of the notice system, and the outcome doesn't seem at all in question now. If I add a caveat that absolutely any party should feel free to revert me, I think we're ok resolving the discussion with that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support All I can say that a short mention of one sentence at most is warranted. It is a major policy statement that must be reflected in the lead, regardless of whether the constitution permits the thing she advocates for or not. I wouldn't write "she supports theocracy" because technically her staff denies that, even if IMHO that denial is flimsy. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Usage of "Patriot" as pronoun

In a May 25th, 2022 tweet, Lauren Boebert stated "my pronoun is 'patriot'". Now, since "patriot" is not a common pronoun- not is an object, possessive of reflexive form given. Considering "patriot" is most often used as a noun, I will assume that it uses a similar pattern to "noun-self" neopronouns (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopronoun) and would thus have an object of "patriot", a possessive of "patriot's" and a reflexive of "patriotself". I would like to request that this pronoun set be implemented to best reflect Rep. Boebert's stated personal preferences. 73.240.85.140 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not think we will be incorporating her trollish comments into the article as her pronouns. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Usage of "Patriot" as a pronoun

The intention with this shift would not be to grant support of legitimacy to Rep. Boebert's trolling comments- rather, to demonstrate to Boebert both the legitimacy of the transgender peoples' experiences Rep. Boebert's messages are ridiculing- and the legitimacy non-binary pronouns Boebert is attempting to de-legitimize. This would also be an opportunity to demonstrate to Rep. Boebert the actual meaning and effects of these comments, which Rep. Boebert dismissed as a joke and never truly redacted- as well as offer Rep. Boebert a chance to publicly redacted her comments and admit, assuming that Rep. Norbert would intend to reverse the changes, that she was wrong in her delegitimization of pronouns. 73.240.85.140 (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

to demonstrate to Boebert both the legitimacy of the transgender peoples' experiences We are not here to right great wrongs, such as transphobia. Besides, do you think Boebert actually reads this page? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Acknowledgement of inflammatory Twitter history

Examining the Lauren Boebert article, I could find no mention of Rep. Boebert's propensity for making offensive statements, both on Twitter and in person, against marginalized groups (aside from her derogatory comments toward Rep. Omar, which I feel are wrongly placed under the "Comments toward representatives of other religions" heading, as this reduces Rep. Omar to simply her religion and does not imply that these comments are unquestionably offensive). Among others, these statements include her infamous "My pronoun is 'patriot'" tweet, her "terminate the presidency" threats, her anti-Semitic (of at least Holocaust de-legitimizing) comparisons of the FBI and the Gestapo, and the aforementioned "Jihad Squad" Ilhan Omar rhetoric. Similar rhetoric by other representatives has been mentioned in their Wikipedia pages, such as Paul Gosar's AOC-killing anime tweets and Marjorie Taylor Green's "Jewish space laser" tweets, and I would like to see to it that Rep. Boebert receives the same treatment, with at least a mention of not under its own heading. 73.240.85.140 (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Find some WP:RS and propose some text additions and we can consider it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Political positions discrepancy

In the opening paragraphs, during a brief summary of Rep. Boebert's political positions, it stated that she opposes "sex-reassignment surgeries for minors". However, underneath the "Political positions" heading, it describes her opinions against the administration of puberty blockers, not surgeries, to minors- and puberty blockers are not a form of sex-reassignment surgery. Could we see this discrepancy corrected if possible? 73.240.85.140 (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Here's her opposing GRS in her own words.
• Here she is cosponsoring a bill that would make GRS illegal.

If we need to update the body, then we should. But the lead seems to be accurate. Happy (Slap me) 17:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: I've just made such an edit, using the second source. Happy (Slap me) 17:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Unsupported by the sources cited

In the "Education" section I removed a subordinate clause that wasn't supported by the sources. The phrase was "even though it is not taught in schools" is not supported by the first Durango Herald source at the end of the sentence. The next Durango Herald source describes the subject more broadly and explains that it is being taught as "diversity" and "inclusion" demands. Thus, I've removed a POV insertion not supported by sources while the sources we have support the opposite. Reverting an edit that I clearly labeled "removed, unsupported by the reference which only states her position" should address my claim, not merely revert with an arbitrary unexplained "NPOV violation." Jason from nyc (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The phrase was "even though it is not taught in schools" is not supported by the first Durango Herald source at the end of the sentence. Really? Because the passage from the Durango Herald reads

Other top legislative priorities she named include eliminating “critical race theory” from schools, an academic theory not currently included in Colorado’s K-12 curriculum

ValarianB (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the issue. Notice the omitted phrase "an academic theory". Also notice they use scare quotes around "critical race theory." It's not clear that she holds the view that legal and educational theories are being taught or the percepts and recommendations of those theories are being taught. The second article suggests that latter. I suggest that we add quotes to "critical race theory" and add the phrase "academic theory". Perhaps change the phrase to "as an academic theory this is not being taught." Jason from nyc (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

ValerianB's argument above is airtight. "even though it is not taught in schools" is definitely a valid interpretation of "not currently included in Colorado's K-12 curriculum," and removing that phrase is an NPOV violation, as it's implying that CRT is actually taught in schools when it is a demonstrable fact that it is not.

You seem to be suggesting first that because CRT is an academic theory, that is is necessarily taught in K-12 schools, which is nonsensical and false. It is taught in law school and in schools of social science, both of which are institutes of higher education. You also seem to be suggesting that Boebert has not claimed that it is taught in schools, which is also nonsensical. She has made the claim many times, and it is trivial to find examples. Here's one from her own website. Happy (Slap me) 16:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You seem to miss my point entirely. The article says CRT is "an academic theory not currently included". There's a difference between teaching an academic theory presented in law school or schools of education and teaching history in the manner recommended by this theory. History is being taught in public schools, not pedagogical theories. You are giving us your POV of what is taught or not. The article in question has a single line about CRT as it is mostly about other matters, "focused on public lands and partisanship." Thus, the article doesn't define terms. You're making an assumption, that's your POV. I'm saying leave it out because we can't make an assumption what on earth a single passing reference means when it doesn't define terms nor gives Boebert's view. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Now you've just given me a link to Boebert's view which says:

Critical race theory argues that the United States is inherently racist. It pushes the idea that American institutions like the Constitution and Bill of Rights are remnants of white supremacy, male hegemony, and capitalist exploitation rather than guardians of freedom. It teaches that the foundation of America must be undone in order to achieve a just society. The theory seeks to use race as a lens through which all areas of American life are to be questioned under, classifying people into oppressors and victims. Its ideology has spread from government to school campuses—contaminating and corrupting our country and our youths’ education.

This explains her view. Shouldn't this be in the bio? Jason from nyc (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying now. In the future, you should perhaps include your point in your arguments; it makes discussion easier.

As to the qualities of your point: it is WP:OR and cannot be used in the article. Happy (Slap me) 12:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You claimed a passage in the article was unsupported by the citation. I showed that your claim was wrong. There's nothing more to discuss here. ValarianB (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2022

Lauren Boebert's official congress webpage lists her date of birth as December 15, 1986. What is the source for December 19, 1986? Daganator (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The actual sources for her DOB are given as her twitter profile (which doesn't list her DOB) and a source which, itself, cites Wikipedia, which is WP:CIRCULAR, and thus not acceptable. I'm going to alter it and cite it to the congressional page.

Also, you should edit this to see how to correctly format an external link. The way you did it jumbled the link up and make it unusable. This is how you do an external link with text. Happy (Slap me) 21:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Her official Bio has been updated to list her date of birth as December 19, 1986. Recheck the link above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jssettle (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

jfc, I just updated it again. I know there's some confusion out there about her exact birth date. If this source changes again, we may need to remove or alter this parameter to reflect that. Happy (Slap me) 16:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Far-right in wiki-voice in first sentence of lead

ValarianB, please note that a RfC earlier this year was closed with a consensus to not include "far-right" in the first sentence of the lead."far-right"_to_the_lead There is consensus to include it as an attributed claim later in the lead per the closing. The current lead includes a discussion of "far-right" Springee (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: religious beliefs section?

I don't see anything that articulates her religious beliefs. This recent story by The Guardian mentions her belief in the end times prophecy and the second coming of Christ.

Boebert tells Republican dinner guests they're part of 'second coming of Jesus'

At a dinner hosted by Knox county Republican party in Tennessee on Wednesday, Boebert addressed the guests by saying ... "It is an honor to serve in this time. I believe that many of us in this room believe that we are in the last of the last days and that's not a time to complain ... but a time to rejoice," Boebert said. "You get to be a part of ushering in the second coming of Jesus," the congresswoman said to applause across the room. Boebert's remarks of the Christian belief that Jesus will return again after his ascension to heaven 2,000 years ago has triggered a slew of reactions online.

This seems important enough to add into the Wikipedia article about Boebert. What do others think? Thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

How about this instead:

Boebart tells Knox County Republicans they're part of the last days

At a [fundraising?] dinner [costing $ per person] hosted by the Knox County Republican Party in Tennessee on [date], Boebert said, "I believe that many of us in this room believe we are in the last days, and that's not a time to complain." Her full statement was published [@where] on Twitter. Lamoatlarge (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, this does not belong in a religious beliefs section, but in political views. That she explicitly, publicly mixes her belief in the rapture with her politics is about politics, not about religion. Lamoatlarge (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's complicated right? She is an evangelical Christian, which is a big part of her political identity and seems to motivate some of her political positions, such as Christian nationalism and etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2022

Former Representative 68.60.76.80 (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The race has not yet been called as of the time of this response. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of election outcomes, her term has not finished yet. Dimadick (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2022 (2)

In 2022, after being strongly endorsed by the Former President Trump, Boebert suffered a surprising loss in the General election on November 8th and will no longer be serving in the United States Congress. She has refused to acknowledge defeat - her last public statement was about the "Red Wave beginning", but in fact - it never came and just like her term in Congress, it is over. Brianlarose (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It hasn't officially been announced that she has lost yet. Once it's officially called, we'll update the page. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that the second sentence would not be appropiate for this encyclopedia.89.246.53.70 (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

True also. It'd be added in an encyclopedic way of course! ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Criticisms

This page is atrocious. It is propaganda. It is not in the style or in conformity with pages of, for example, Ocasio-Cortez or Crist. It is attempting to be journalistic when it is supposed to be encyclopedic, and it does a horrible job of unbiased journalism. Lamoatlarge (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

What specific changes would you like to see? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

There are no references to Mrs Boebert's ethnicity. It's unlikely that she is pure Caucasian. Does she have Latina or African American ancestry? 2402:D000:811C:3D8C:C9F3:F9EE:817D:1051 (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. There's a definite political slant in this article. Christianmusician06 (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

We go by sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for minor edits

In section "Tenure and Political Positions," under the subheading "Certification of 2020...," the link from the phrase "1776 moment" to the Declaration of Independence article should be removed because it is an Easter egg link. The reference is immediately explained in the text and linked to the American Revolution article, so this Easter egg is not necessary for context.

Under same subheading, in the second to last paragraph, there are several quotations that are written with end punctuation outside the quotation marks. Please edit these to put the punctuation marks inside the quotes in accordance with American English grammar rules. 72.204.54.180 (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Abortion

Why not bring up Lauren’s ideas on Pro-Life Family Values - https://boebert.house.gov/issues/pro-life-and-family-values Many Christians are against the Democrat’s idea that Abortion should be legal up to the moment of Birth, like the Democrat’s Bill in the House and Senate would have allowed by Federal Law. The way Wikipedia does not present these issues makes one believe you are slanting your narrative against Congresswoman Lauren Boebert to an extreme Left viewpoint, not considering that termination of a well fetus through abortion at the moment of birth goes completely against even the Supreme Court’s decision of the 1973 case, Roe v Wade, and certainly the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v Casey?Easeltine (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Easeltine, nobody says that abortion should be legal until birth, including Democrats. You're believing lies, which makes you think we're biased against Boebert when we're reflecting reality. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"nobody says that abortion should be legal until birth" - except for the ones that do, including many Democrats. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Who, specifically? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I can recall that during the debate about partial-birth abortions every Dem Senator (including Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Biden) of the time opposed the ban. This particular gruesome procedure was used in the later stages of pregancy. Stacey Abrams recently called on women to have abortions for financial reasons, not including any limits.

Also, this article (which apparently doesn't include the ballots held last week yet) has several states with "abortion legal at any stage". The California ballot proposition, pushed by Dems, does not contain any limiting language (unlike, for example, the Michigan ballot proposition).

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"Partial birth abortion" is not a medical term, it is a right-wing dog whistle. So, I think we're done with you here. Zaathras (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Who is "we", your Majesty?

I was asked a question. I responded. Too bad you didn't like that. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC) PS. Would you prefer the medically accurate "turning a baby, crushing the skull and sucking out the pieces"? Str1977 ^(talk) 16:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

If those referenda were approved by the citizenry of the given states, then it's not just a particular political group that opposes the government standing between a woman and her doctor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, those measures were introduced and supported by certain groups and not by others. I take your attempt to shift goal posts as admission that your initial objection was wrong. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

How many of those older politicians were running for office this year? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Str1977: the term generally used by those who hope to be taken seriously is "third trimester abortion". They are rare, making up a small subset of the ~1.5% of abortions performed after 20 weeks. Generally performed when fatal birth defects are detected late in the pregnancy, which is why they should remain legal. We already mention the subject's opposition to reproductive rights in the article; what changes are you proposing? VQuakr (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

"Third trimester abortion" is a term for all abortions at that late stage. They are thankfully rare but nevertheless gruesome. They are not always necessary but even those that are - and these cases are pretty uncontroversial - are tragic and horrid, for both mother and child. Is it your position that they should ALWAYS be legal because they are SOMETIMES necessary?

"Partial birth abortion" is a colloquial term for a particular gruesome method used in the third trimester that was fortunately banned back in the day. What I wrote above was not primarily about that method but against the wrong claim that "nobody says that abortion should be legal until birth". I gave three points to debunk that false claim.

I wasn't proposing any changes. I was, as I said, responding to a false claim. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

"Always remember to never say 'always' or 'never'." And in this kind of case, 'everybody' or 'nobody'. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

We agree on that. And I like your reference to "What's up, Doc?" Str1977 ^(talk) 20:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely should be legal (and are currently too burdensome to get throughout most of the country regardless of fetal viability). Women don't need anyone making their medical decisions for them. VQuakr (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I live in California. Most Pro-Choice people are themselves not as extreme as agreeing with the idea of allowing an abortion on a healthy fetus up to the moment of birth, yet as stated these Bills voted on, and the Proposition in California do not give a limit on how late the Abortion can take place. They are passing laws much more extreme than Roe v Wade, or Planned Parenthood v Casey, like California AB2223, literally prohibiting prosecution of a woman who commits Infanticide. https://amp.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article266445476.html Easeltine (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

(1) That's off topic as it has nothing to do with Boebart and (2) the source says "The law does prevent pregnant people from being criminally charged in the event that an infant dies due to pregnancy-related causes. It does not decriminalize the killing of infants." EvergreenFir (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Going back again to the Pro Life Pro Family stand by Congresswoman Boebert, (not Boebert). Congresswoman Boebert, will fight against making Colorado a Sanctuary Abortion State, (where the Bill passed does not define when an Abortion is illegal, moment of Birth is possible the way it is written), or a Transgender Sanctuary State where little boys can come to and get there you-know-what cut off. Easeltine (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC) *their Easeltine (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

This is silly given that Boebert is the incumbent representative in the US Congress, not a state legislator. The transphobia is less silly. VQuakr (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Silly isn't the word I'd use. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What does "Boebert, (not Boebert)" mean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: I believe they are saying that references to the subject should always include the title "Congresswoman". VQuakr (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I wonder what the reverential user calls Nancy Pelosi? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

"Madame speaker emerita", obviously. VQuakr (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Evergreen, above you spelled Congresswoman Boebert, “Boebart,” with an “a”. I am a Conservative, and I call House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and President Biden I call President Biden, since I am older and have respect for the Offices. Easeltine (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That's your prerogative, other users don't have to refer to public officials with their full title every. single. time.

Also, "Boebart" is clearly just a typo Scoutguy138 (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Easeltine, as an Englishman I have a question about your respect - how do you refer to people such as Trump, Lincoln and Perot? Here in the UK there's no disrespect to say "Sunak" not "Prime Minister Sunak", or "May" and not "The The Right Honourable Theresa May", etc so curious as to the cultural difference, and why you feel it's necessary to include titles in conversation when it doesn't seem to be a common trait at all. Again, in all seriousness - why do you think missing the titles equates to a lack of respect? When it's perfectly obvious who the person is (and therefore their position in government) it seems a bit ostentatious. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That's more respect toward Biden than Boebert and Greene have shown, they being the Statler and Waldorf of last year's state of the union speech. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not like the disrespect from both sides of the aisle, like House Speaker Pelosi tearing up President Trump’s State of the Union address. About people addressing the Prime Minister as not Prime Minister, I do not know how the people not in Office address a person in Office, though watching people in your Parliament, mostly Canada’s Parliament they always go out of their way to use the Titles. Easeltine (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

But we're not in "Office". We're members of the public - or at least most of us are. If you hold some kind of public office, then I guess you can call them by titles, but that still doesn't mean that a lack of titles is equatable to a lack of respect. Incidentally - you didn't answer my main question of how you personally refer to Trump, Lincoln and Perot - ie former members of office, which is what I'm really interested in. Being an Englishman, I have no idea how Canada operates, but I'll be sure to ask the next Canadian I identify. (So, as Trump is no longer President - shouldn't you be calling him former President Trump?) Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

PS: If this is too much Forumesque, happy to be redirected to your talk page to continue. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Chaheel, with the particular Office of President one can address them as President the rest of their life. “ -#2) The contemporary practice is to orally address and refer to former presidents as President (Surname) in conversation or in a salutation. NOTE: The current president is the only one to be identified as The President or addressed as Mr. President.” - https://www.formsofaddress.info/president-usa-former/. It may be a little different for Prime Ministers, yet the term “Honorable” may be used for them the rest of their lives. https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/what-titles-do-the-prime-ministers-get-after-they-have-retired/ No, in the U.S. when talking about a former President, any good Journalist will refer to the person as, President Carter, President Bush Sr., President Clinton, President Bush Jr., President Obama, President Trump, and President Biden particularly the Office of the President. Easeltine (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Perot, is Mr. Perot, and it is always President Lincoln for me. Easeltine (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

For me, this disrespect for the Office of the Presidency started when President Clinton called an active President of the United States, “Mr. Bush,” in a Presidential debate. Easeltine (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You must have forgotten that during Nixon's term, reporters started referring to him as "Mr. Nixon". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm hugely amused by the astounding lack of respect shown by answering my questions with references to Canadian and then Australian government etiquette while ignoring the UK, even when I made it clear in my very first question that I was an Englishman, and mentioned two UK politicians as examples... Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.formsofaddress.info/bri/ If they are in Office you address them in conversation as, "Prime Minister." I know you don't. 12.55.23.94 (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 General Election results

Even if still tentative, it seems to me that by now something ought to be said about the results of the November, 2022, general election. --Haruo (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The only thing we can say at this point is As of (date), the election remains too close to call.(ref) – Muboshgu (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

There really isn't any reason to say anything until the results are out. Wikipedia isn't a news sources so it's not an issue if we wait and update when the results are final. There is no need for play by play vs just waiting for the event to play out. Springee (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, like Widipedia mistakenly calling Adam Fisch the winner on his page on 11/9. They have fixed that after notifying them of the mistake. Easeltine (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" did no such thing, it may behoove you to figure out how things work here before spouting off. All Wikipedia articles save a very tiny number of highly-traffic and/or highly-contentious ones are open to all editors to edit, new, old, and even IP addresses. The edit in question here was made by someone no differet than you, just a regular person, and it was removed in 15 minutes. Zaathras (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras: given that they've had their WP account for almost 15 years, don't hold your breath on their learning our processes if they haven't by now. VQuakr (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Right now they are fixing their problem by “curing” the votes. Easeltine (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Ballot curing is a normal part of counting the votes in an election. It gets more attention when the vote tallies are close. It isn't accurately summarized as "fixing their problem". Are you proposing any specific changes to the article? VQuakr (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

No. Just a clarification for Haruo on why this Election has not been called yet. The Election has not been called, since Colorado Law allows 28 days to request a recount if the vote is within .05%. The Requestor must pay for the recall unless they are the winner in the end. Easeltine (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Might consider adding to that article Adam Frisch called Congresswoman Boebert, congratulated her for winning. My opinion, President Trump, Secretary of State Clinton, and Vice President Gore could all take lessons from him… Easeltine (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

We say that he conceded. Boebert is the subject of this article, not Frisch so expanding on that probably isn't due. Clinton conceded the 2016 presidential election BTW. VQuakr (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia, should not be putting the voting results of this race in yet. This race has not been called by The Associated Press yet due to the Colorado recount rule when a person has less than .5% margin. Easeltine (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

False election call

In the main article it says Boebert won re-election in a narrow margin The Associated Press has not called the race and therefore there is no winner as of right now 7:14PM November 18th 2022 216.223.198.134 (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Her opponent has conceded. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

AP, like other media, reports wins but doesn't "call" them in any official capacity. With her opponent having conceded it seems reasonable for her to be identified as the winner ahead of the official results that will come out in a couple of weeks. VQuakr (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

No, see above, one has 28 days to request a recall by Colorado Law, so not yet. Easeltine (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Assuming you mean recount not recall. Recounts in Colorado are automatic for races with 0.5%. [34] VQuakr (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Right, recount, except it sounds like there needs to be a request. https://ballotpedia.org/Recount_laws_in_Colorado. Where I am getting this. Easeltine (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

We linked the same source. First bullet point from the article: Does state law require automatic recounts? Yes, when a margin of victory in an election is less than or equal to 0.5% of the winner's vote. Other recounts have to be requested, but recounts for races within a 0.5% margin are automatic and mandatory under Colorado state law. VQuakr (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Technically, Wikipedia should be waiting for the automatic recount period before putting in the actual votes. Your source for the votes counted, Ballotpedia states:

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The outcome of this election has not been called yet. Easeltine (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

There's no need to say this in multiple sections. Her opponent conceded; nobody waits for the certified tallies when the outcome is clear. VQuakr (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

"Trump's false claims" of election fraud

That line is editorialized. It should read "Trump's claim" instead. 76.179.18.232 (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources declare his claims to be false so we are required to also do so. We do not push falsehoods here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2023

Under US House of Representatives and TENURE, change January 3 2022 to January 3 2023 when referencing the speaker vote. 50.47.165.67 (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2023

Education: High school equivalency certificate. Rep. Boebert needed to take the GED four time in order to pass. REKLAWFE (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2023

Request to change the word "legalise" from UK English version to "legalize," US English version Aclee001461 (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done lettherebedarklight晚安 10:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2023 (2)

Change legalise to legalize, under the Election section, "2022" Aclee001461 (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@aclee001461: please don't make duplicate requests. lettherebedarklight晚安 10:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Change: "She supports Trump's false claims that the 2020 election "

In the interests of neutrality I'd suggest dropping "false" in the above phrase.

As we are learning a lot of false news or misinformation is turning somewhat true. Better to stay neutral and not adopt this type of editorial style. It's been a while since I edited on Wikipedia so forgive me it this is the wrong way to approach this issue. Ijeffsc (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"Somewhat true"? Where do you come up with that? It's false. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Muboshgu - I think this is the path OP is walking... Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Impeachment(s)

May as well also include brief mention of her calls to impeach VP Harris and Homeland Security Secy Mayorkis. There was also broad coverage of her having put out a graphic with impeach misspelled. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I found a citation for the impeachments. However, I could understand though if people it was WP:UNDUE. There have been several efforts to impeach Joe Biden by Republicans, so it is not really that special. I think it is significant enough for now. A misspelling on a graphic is amusing, but not significant from an encyclopedic perspective. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, the spelling thing is arguably as encylopedic as her husband's antics, beating Lauren, dropping his trousers at the bowling alley, throwing fries at the owner, Jailtime, her lies about it, etc. But I don't care. SPECIFICO talk

A mispeling is embarasing but hardly encylopeedic. Leeve it out. Springee (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the folks who discussed this in the media used it as an indication of ignorance and stupidity. But we would do better with sources and content that discuss that explicitly rather than mocking her for it with this example. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

"used it as an indication of ignorance and stupidity" Which is a rather stereotypical association of poor education with stupidity. Boebert is a high school dropout, and her vocabulary skills (based on several news stories) were never that great. Her intelligence level probably has little to do with her lack of education, or her unfamiliarity with certain terms or their proper context. Dimadick (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. What's yours? Do you have sourcing that discusses or evaluates her rather than mocking her? SPECIFICO talk 13:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Not really. I have been following news items about her through political blogs, after working on improving some aspects of her article a couple of years ago. I soon started noticing that they were mocking her spelling errors, and noticed a couple of her interviews where she seemed genuinely unfamiliar with terms which she encountered. It makes sense to me that someone who never completed their secondary education may have neither encountered, nor memorized terms and topics familiar to the average college student.Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a reasonable inference, and one that has been made by many RS, that someone whose education is at the level of a 12-year old may not be well equipped to do the business of a legislator. But at any rate, we base evaluation of the content on RS rather than reading lots of self-published blogs. RS don't treat her very kindly for many reasons. SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Many intelligent and capable people are not highly educated, especially in the formal sense. Obsession with credentials is a modern disorder that is typically self-serving. Bobby Lawndale (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Please indicate the connection you are trying to make between your comment and the discussion in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I don't see the connection between your comment on Boebert's education or on her husband and her calling for impeachment of Harris and/or Mayorkas. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe the thread was discussing not primarily her call for impeachment but her misspelling, etc. and I view this as UNDUE per se, but I noted that there is content about her husband, etc in the Personal section that is roughly on a par. I think we need summary tertiary RS coverage of this kind of content, not examples from which each reader may draw a personal inference. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Shooters grill and staff treatment.

What's the opinion on keeping the section removed? I think it seems valid, only a single source I accept when you consider that two seem influenced by the Mother Jones article, but it seems detailed enough - even naming at leat one member of staff - and a source is a source. (Or three sources.) Given her position within the American Government structure, you'd expect her own business practices to reflect upon her, and that's what is happening here?

According to The Independent and Salon.com, quoting an article in Mother Jones, several former Shooters' employees said they were shorted on their earnings at a time when Boebert was spending "exorbitant sums on breast implants," describing the workplace experience as "a nightmare," and her as "a monster." They said their pay was often received late, paid in cash from the register or from her husband's wallet, although without employee taxes being deducted or paid.

Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Mother Jones does credible and reliable investigative reporting. If it is accepted and found noteworthy by multiple other RS, it is worth inclusion in the article. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

"They said their pay was often received late" Is that really unusual? My older brother has worked for the same restaurant on-and-off for the last 25 years. His payment is often delayed by a week or two, with the typical excuse that his bosses have insufficient funds to cover all the restaurant's running expenses on time. Also, one of his former bosses at the restaurant was often cash-strapped due to his own medical expenses for a number of serious illnesses. Dimadick (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I personally find it unusual that you don't find it unusual. It may be a country/cultural thing, and I really don't want to get into a sniping match over different country's ways of doing things, but in what world is waiting up to two weeks for entitled pay to be considered not unusual, ie "usual"? I didn't spend the entire day doing so, but I asked a few of my friends who work in hospitality from potwash to floor manager, and all where aghast at the concept of not being paid on time, viewing it as a sign of poor business. (One said "If they don't pay on time, I don't turn up on time, and who do you think would get the calls about unprofessionalism?" - although there were a few more flowery terms in there as spoken.)

Anyway, back to the point - is your brother's boss an American politician, businesswoman, and gun rights activist serving as the U.S. representative for Colorado's 3rd congressional district, or indeed any other state or district? If not, it's not really notable, but the point is - Boebert is notable, and her business practices reflect on her personally. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Is that really unusual? ANS: Yes. And quite likely illegal under Colorado and US law. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This content is UNDUE. MJ is a poor quality, very partisan source so we need to be careful in deciding if anything they say has sufficient weight for inclusion. The fact that two other sources published me too articles within a day of the original MJ source doesn't help as those sources are also very partisan and they didn't actually add anything more to the original claims. Furthermore, what are the claims in question? They read as much like disgruntled employees just complaining as anything with real substance. When where these claims published? No surprise during the lead up to an election when all sorts of muck raking occurs. More importantly, we are almost a year later and nothing has become of these unsubstantiated accusations. Do we have any new information or sources on this? If not, then we don't include it as it clearly didn't have staying power. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a repository of every accusation made against unpopular politicians by sources that have a clear bias against said politician. Springee (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, the claims that MJ is unreliable need to be substantiated by you, as you're the one objecting, but a quick scan of the website shows many articles critical of Biden, and pulling few punches when discussing his term and policies. I say again, that it seems highly relevant that the way a politician behaves when running a restaurant is telling when it comes to how they may run the country as well. With regard to DUE and UNDUE - the grill closed in July 2022, so it's natural that reporting on it would be less than when open. The fact that these things have come up again suggests the opposite of UNDUE, that something that happened maybe a year ago is still relevant to the current context - ie the lead up to an election. You call it muck-raking, others call it investigative reporting. Wikipedia calls it WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which I'm aware are different sections of the same article). Additionally, checking Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard seems to uphold Mother Jones as a reliable and acceptable source. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who objected. Richard-of-Earth also removed the same content. But diving into the issue with MJ, they are a very partisan source and the WP:RSP entry even makes it clear that even if MJ's facts are true, the weight that should be applied is questionable. We can also take this a step further. If we think the content of this article are due why not mention the positive things MJ reported? Why not mention that Boebert bought a car for a down on luck employee? Why just quote the gossipy negative claims? MJ is the only original source for these claims. The other sources just parrot what was said in quick to publish me too articles that don't actually investigate the claims. That means that the whole of these negative claims, made by unnamed people, come from MJ. That is a problem given this is a BLP. You said these things came up again but all three sources were published over 2 calendar days. Springee (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I removed it because an article in Salon did not seem enough support for such content. When it was put back with better support and attribution to those sources in the prose, my objection was satisfied. You can count me as neutral on its inclusion. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I have absolutely no opposition to using MJ as a positive reference. Why would you suppose I do? When I added all three references I included the <ref name> option so they could be used again. If you think buying a car is DUE, and adequately sourced, I would accept that as a suitable example of humanitarian spirit in action. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I think all of it is UNDUE. When you review MJ note that it's clear that a we should consider if a MJ fact is really DUE. Since all of this (both negative and positive) is sourced solely to MJ and since this a lot of unsubstantiated claims there is no reason to include it. Again, Wikipedia is meant to provide a summary, these select nuggets of negativity are the sort of thing we expect from second tier partisan sources trying to drum up negative press before an election. They are the sort of thing that will pass the 10YEAR test. If later sources pick this up and add more facts to back the claims we can review it again in the future. Springee (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Springee, UNDUE is not the same as unverified. MJ is a reliable source for fact. Regardless of whether it's biased, that has nothing to do with whether it's reliable. The issue is whether other publications have found this significant, thus establishing it a part of an NPOV narrative for this page. That is, whether it's UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

How reliable is MJ for facts? Well if we go back to Pinto Madness their impact was high but their factual reporting was very poor. However, that was a long time ago. More recently we have this article by Reason [35] which pointed out some serious issues with their reporting. The original MJ article is still up without corrections [36]. That is not good investigative journalism. But let's assume MJ is factually reporting allegations by former employees. Does that make the allegations true? Does it provide the full context or just the POV of the employee? Are those employees correct in their recall etc? Did this amount to anything beyond some accusations? You are correct, something can be verified yet still be UNDUE (or WP:PROPORTION which is what most people actually mean when they reference DUE/WEIGHT). As WP:V says, verification isn't a guarantee of inclusion. In this case we should ask, does it pass the 10Year test? Taking a step back, of all the facts in the MJ article, why should we focus on these in particular? Aren't we meant to summarize the article? It appears that the thrust of the article was how Boebert ran the business as a whole, not just a few claims. Yes, Salon decided to amplify just those points but can we honestly say that was a one paragraph summary of what MJ said they found? This is why I ask, why those particular facts? Why just the negative ones, why don't we just include the positive facts and ignore the negative ones? I mean if we are OK with just extracting the negatives why shouldn't we be OK with just extracting the positives? Neither would be an accurate summary of the source. Anyway, this these are unsubstantiated accusations that were selectively removed from a source. They don't represent a summary of the source nor do they pass the 10Year test. Springee (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure Boebert herself will pass the 10-year test. But this does need additional sourcing. I don't think the "accusations" are in doubt. SPECIFICO talk 01:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:D I bet that would apply to a lot of BLPs we produce here! Springee (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

" a quick scan of the website shows many articles critical of Biden" I fail to see your point here. Mother Jones per its [self-described history] has had a focus on exposing corporate corruption, and is not particularly friendly to either of the two major parties. In their words: " And while big money has always called the tune in American politics, the money has become bigger than ever and its influence ever more blatant. In 1996, the magazine launched the Mother Jones 400, an investigation of the largest donors to political campaigns." Dimadick (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

My point is further corroborated by your own statement - Mother Jones doesn't care who the person is if they've done wrong: "and is not particularly friendly to either of the two major parties". The term "partisan" here is being used as a euphemism for "biased", and it's been shown that that isn't the case. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

As this seems to have quietened down - can we just be clear on how many editors are against the inclusion, for, and neutral? It doesn't seem that Springee has the consensus they refer to when removing the topic. It seems to be that especially as the editor who originally removed the post is now declaring neutral, that there is more in favour of inclusion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I would read Dimadick's reply as an oppose as well. If you want it in start a RfC so the consensus will be clear. Springee (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Y'see, that's not the case at all though is it? Dimadick just questions whether late payment is unusual, and asks for clarification on my own point. Without further input that's at best neutral, as is Richard-of-Earth. It would also be reasonably to assume that Activist who originally inserted the section is also for the inclusion. The only person who has expressed outright opposition is you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Probably best not to presume and a RfC would address the issue. Springee (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Mention Lauren Boebert being a grandmother at age 36

I am not sure where to add this information, so thought I'd ask here. I think it is noteable that it at least be briefly mentioned somewhere that Lauren Boebert will become a grandmother in April, at the young age of 36, because her eldest son who is 17 is expecting a child. She recently announced her eldest son was expecting at an event for the Conservative group Moms for America. In 2019 the teenage birth rate among teen women in the U.S. ages 15-19 was only 17.4% (source), so a teenager giving birth is very uncommon, which makes this additionally noteable.

Tons of news sources have reported on this, such as Fox News, The Independent, People, New York Post and many other news sources. So it's very newsworthy and one or more of those many news articles could be cited and information about this could be taken from them. Greshthegreat (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It may be newsworthy, but is it notable? What is Boebert's stance on family issues - is her son married, in a stable relationship, estranged or not, etc? How old is the person actually giving birth? Does she fall into the 15-19 age bracket? As I assume it's not her actual son who's giving birth to a child (now that would be both notable and newsworthy,) his age is not relevant to your statistics. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Her son is 17, his girlfriend is 15. She is pregnant. Boebert wants to end sex education in schools, meanwhile she was a teen mom, her son is about to be a teen dad, her possible daughter in law (assuming they marry) is 15. It sounds notable to me. I mean her husband showing his penis to teenage girls is notable, so is this 2603:8081:8700:687D:C657:D0BF:7B1D:23A (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it can merit a sentence in Lauren Boebert#Personal life, but mind your instinct to right great wrongs. That's not what we're here for. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This discussion needs to be framed in terms of the extent and narratives of RS sources on the matter, not editors' amazement. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Denver Post is solid. Mentions that Boebert made her mother a grandmother at 36. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a wonderful uplifting story, and since she boasted it at CPAC, there seems no reason not to include it in her bio. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree that makes a difference. I'm not American so am unfamiliar with all the laws - be they state or national - but isn't 15 under the age of consent? Is that notable in it's own right? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I have added a short paragraph about this to the bottom of the Personal Life section. Looks like a few people have already helped edit it a bit as well. To answer SPECIFICO's question, there is no federal law banning teenage pregnancies, but Colorado has a law that says anyone under 15, can consent to having sex with anyone who is within 4 years of age to them. Boeberts eldest son is 17, and his girlfriend is 15, meaning they are only two years apart in age. Thus this is legal. (Source) Greshthegreat (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Really? I'm surprised, but at the same time, I'm not surprised. Go 'Murica. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Not my question, but thanks. The Colorado mountain air is crisp and clear. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I came here to see what Wikipedia knew about Lauren Boebert. Not normally one to weigh-in on Social Platforms, but boy this article is heavily weighted 'against' her.

I've heard bad things about Wikipedia being slanted in their POV. This article would support those observations. You folks will forgive me if I withhold donations to the site until you get back to your claimed Neutral Point of View. 2603:6011:A700:1DDE:616A:4232:FCBA:EE41 (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide examples where you see issues. That doesn't guarantee they get addresses but it is helpful to know where involved people see issues. Springee (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view means neutrally reflecting what the sources say. It does not mean that the article has to be "neutral". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Christian Nationalism

Lauren Boebert has often times used rhetoric and has effectively declared herself a Christian Nationalist.

https://www.denverpost.com/2022/09/14/lauren-boebert-christian-nationalist-republican-colorado/ Aridantassadar (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

"the last days" wikilink

LiwenAristodemos removed a wikilink to Eschatology for the Boebert quote "we are in the last of the last days," arguing "Wikipedia MOS does not support wikilinks in the middle of a direct quote because it changes the direct quote."[37]

But the text of the quote is not changed by the wikilink, and MOS says "link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author." Doesn't Boebert's "last days" reference clearly correspond to Eschatology?

I'd argue many do not know what "the last days" means, so a wikilink for it is helpful and warranted. soibangla (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears LA is referring to MOS:LWQ, which states: Be conservative when linking within quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after.

That seems reasonable, but if this doesn't pass the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author test, I don't know what would. It's equivalent to linking "I think we will have a vote on the bill to ban partisan gerrymandering". Heavy Water (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

And we might as well debate the linking of "1776 moment" here: The next day, in the hours before the Capitol was attacked, she described the day's events as Republicans' "1776 moment", a reference to the American Revolutionary War. Is it verboten to link anything not verbatim? Heavy Water (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Always best to err on the side of not linking. Even if we agree the subject name, it's not going to be clear that our definition and their intended usage correspond. The link in question is a good example where a wiki editor is deciding this is the correct intent vs allowing the quote to say what the speaker meant. This was a good removal per MOS. Springee (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Boebert using the phrase "the last days" could mean many different things. I don't think it is appropriate to make that interpretation for the reader. Let the reader decide. Are we even sure that Boebert knows what she meant? No, I don't think so. --- LiwenAristodemos (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, obviously, do not link from inside the quote. If we have a secondary RS that connects this to Eschatology, there might be an opportunity to link from outside of the quotation. @Soibangla: friendly reminder to use the greatest of care when editing BLPs. VQuakr (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)