This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Don Bolduc article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
My vote is WP:TNT, would like to see what others think. Bdstack ( talk) 03:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Much of it is unsourced, and I think the bit about the friendly fire doesn't appear neutral or necessarily relevant, especially considering no other part of the article is that specific. TheHalterman ( talk) 18:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with TheHalterman. Many of these passages were lifted word-for-word from his campaign literature: https://donbolduc.com/
Wattersonbill ( talk) 19:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The last sentence in the first paragraph seems to be so broad as to be pointless. Uwieshu ( talk) 02:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Describing a political candidate as "far-right" in Wiki-voice in the opening sentence of a BLP is a violation of LABEL. There are a number of related issues here. First, "far-right" can be considered a contentious label. This is especially true if we link to our article on the Radical right (United States) via a hyperlink from "far-right". The radical right (US) article says characteristics include white supremacism. Is that actually what the news sources meant when they said "far-right" or do they just mean the right most extent of the GOP? The sources did not say "radical-right" yet that is where the intro was sending readers to understand what was meant by "far-right". In effect we are applying a contentious label in wiki-voice based on some sources then using that to apply characteristics to the individual that were not in the referenced sources. Additionally, to apply this label in Wiki-voice we need to show that it is all but universally applied to the person. That hasn't been shown. A very quick survey of news articles shows that it isn't a near universal term. Another issue is this is content that is introduced in the article lead but no where else in the article. The body of the article never said "far-right" or "radical right" yet it was used in wiki-voice in the opening sentence. That violates lead follows body. Finally, at least three editors have contested this addition so consensus hasn't been established. Personally, I think it would make sense to have the political subtopic say he is described as "far-right" by media sources and find sources that explain why they say he is far right as references. Labels absent some level of definition are too easy to throw out or abuse and typically aren't encyclopedic. They often are attempts to appeal to the emotions of readers instead. Springee ( talk) 03:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
"Describing a political candidate as "far-right" in Wiki-voice in the opening sentence of a BLP is a violation of LABEL."Huh? Being on the far-right is a political position, and a claim which is very well sourced, being in virtually all of the articles regarding Bolduc's primary win, contrary to your claim otherwise.
The radical right (US) article says characteristics include white supremacism.I'm struggling to see the relevance of this. He's described all-bar universally as a far-right politician and so we should link to it in the lead. If you have any better suggestions, I'm all ears.
Is that actually what the news sources meant when they said "far-right" or do they just mean the right most extent of the GOP?Well, check the quotes in the sources, which @ Doremo: kindly added to the citations. He's described as "Far-right New Hampshire Senate candidate Don Bolduc", "Don Bolduc, a far-right retired Army general", "a far-right candidate .... Retired Army Gen. Don Bolduc", "a far-right GOP candidate .... retired Gen. Don Bolduc", "A far-right candidate .... retired Army Brigadier General Don Bolduc" and a "far-right candidate". Seems fairly clear to me.
Another issue is this is content that is introduced in the article lead but no where else in the article.Fair enough, but it's in the article body now, along with the political positions that place him on the far-right.
Finally, at least three editors have contested this addition so consensus hasn't been established.With respect, you're the only one disputing this content being added who's actually citing policy and engaging. The other two have just been finger-wagging about "partisan-ness" or "divisiveness".
I believe the sources are clear and solid to support the far-right descriptor. Also, the onus is on those who wish to remove it, not on content presently in the article. ValarianB ( talk) 13:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I wonder whether we might obtain consensus by taking "far-right" out of Wikivoice and attaching the well-sourced statement that news outlets, in their news reports, call Bolduc far-right. E.g.: "Donald C. Bolduc (born May 8, 1962) is an American conservative politician and retired United States Army brigadier general. Described as "far-right" by newspapers and wire services, he is the Republican nominee in the 2022 United States Senate election in New Hampshire, running against incumbent Democrat Maggie Hassan..." PRRfan ( talk) 16:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.Additionally, the BLPN discussion confirmed there was no consensus for the text as it currently exists. Springee ( talk) 17:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.Springee ( talk) 17:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
With Springee's approbation, at least, I'm going to be bold and move "far-right" out of Wikivoice, and append this to the first graf: "His political stances have been described as 'far-right' by newspapers and wire services" with cites. PRRfan ( talk) 21:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Uwieshu, your question [4] about the last sentence of the first paragraph probably belongs in this talk section. PRRfan, do you think it would make more sense to move the sentence from the last sentence of the first paragraph to the first sentence of the second paragraph? There it might serve as a topic sentence for that paragraph. Springee ( talk) 03:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
References
Is it worth mentioning that there are reports that the Democratic Party supported him to improve Hassan's chances to win this election? See: https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-for-maga-republicans-new-hampshire-republicans-don-bolduc-chuck-morse-maggie-hassan-11662759677 -- Einar Moses Wohltun ( talk) 09:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() | This
edit request to
Donald C. Bolduc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The profile is highly biased almost as if it is written by a Hassan staffer Jose Lipton ( talk) 04:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Bolduc's decision to join other Republicans in spreading the litter-box lie is noteworthy both as part of the national effort to spread this particular falsehood and as part of his own general willingness to spread falsehoods. PRRfan ( talk) 16:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The addition of the conspiracy theorist category to this article violates WP:BLPCAT. The sourcing in this article doesn't support that Bolduc is, himself a conspiracy theorist even if he is accused of spreading some conspiracies. Previous BLPN discussions have noted one is not the same as the other (example [ Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive331#Ann Coulter and a conspiracy theorist CAT tag]. Even Andrew Wakefield wasn't considered a conspiracy theorist despite his vaccine related claims[ Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive330#Category: British conspiracy theorists / Andrew Wakefield]. BLPCAT makes it clear that inclusion in a category is the same as saying a person is the thing in wikivoice. In particular the BLP section says, "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). " As the category violates BLP I am removing the recently added category from the article. Springee ( talk) 23:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Don Bolduc article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
My vote is WP:TNT, would like to see what others think. Bdstack ( talk) 03:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Much of it is unsourced, and I think the bit about the friendly fire doesn't appear neutral or necessarily relevant, especially considering no other part of the article is that specific. TheHalterman ( talk) 18:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with TheHalterman. Many of these passages were lifted word-for-word from his campaign literature: https://donbolduc.com/
Wattersonbill ( talk) 19:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The last sentence in the first paragraph seems to be so broad as to be pointless. Uwieshu ( talk) 02:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Describing a political candidate as "far-right" in Wiki-voice in the opening sentence of a BLP is a violation of LABEL. There are a number of related issues here. First, "far-right" can be considered a contentious label. This is especially true if we link to our article on the Radical right (United States) via a hyperlink from "far-right". The radical right (US) article says characteristics include white supremacism. Is that actually what the news sources meant when they said "far-right" or do they just mean the right most extent of the GOP? The sources did not say "radical-right" yet that is where the intro was sending readers to understand what was meant by "far-right". In effect we are applying a contentious label in wiki-voice based on some sources then using that to apply characteristics to the individual that were not in the referenced sources. Additionally, to apply this label in Wiki-voice we need to show that it is all but universally applied to the person. That hasn't been shown. A very quick survey of news articles shows that it isn't a near universal term. Another issue is this is content that is introduced in the article lead but no where else in the article. The body of the article never said "far-right" or "radical right" yet it was used in wiki-voice in the opening sentence. That violates lead follows body. Finally, at least three editors have contested this addition so consensus hasn't been established. Personally, I think it would make sense to have the political subtopic say he is described as "far-right" by media sources and find sources that explain why they say he is far right as references. Labels absent some level of definition are too easy to throw out or abuse and typically aren't encyclopedic. They often are attempts to appeal to the emotions of readers instead. Springee ( talk) 03:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
"Describing a political candidate as "far-right" in Wiki-voice in the opening sentence of a BLP is a violation of LABEL."Huh? Being on the far-right is a political position, and a claim which is very well sourced, being in virtually all of the articles regarding Bolduc's primary win, contrary to your claim otherwise.
The radical right (US) article says characteristics include white supremacism.I'm struggling to see the relevance of this. He's described all-bar universally as a far-right politician and so we should link to it in the lead. If you have any better suggestions, I'm all ears.
Is that actually what the news sources meant when they said "far-right" or do they just mean the right most extent of the GOP?Well, check the quotes in the sources, which @ Doremo: kindly added to the citations. He's described as "Far-right New Hampshire Senate candidate Don Bolduc", "Don Bolduc, a far-right retired Army general", "a far-right candidate .... Retired Army Gen. Don Bolduc", "a far-right GOP candidate .... retired Gen. Don Bolduc", "A far-right candidate .... retired Army Brigadier General Don Bolduc" and a "far-right candidate". Seems fairly clear to me.
Another issue is this is content that is introduced in the article lead but no where else in the article.Fair enough, but it's in the article body now, along with the political positions that place him on the far-right.
Finally, at least three editors have contested this addition so consensus hasn't been established.With respect, you're the only one disputing this content being added who's actually citing policy and engaging. The other two have just been finger-wagging about "partisan-ness" or "divisiveness".
I believe the sources are clear and solid to support the far-right descriptor. Also, the onus is on those who wish to remove it, not on content presently in the article. ValarianB ( talk) 13:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I wonder whether we might obtain consensus by taking "far-right" out of Wikivoice and attaching the well-sourced statement that news outlets, in their news reports, call Bolduc far-right. E.g.: "Donald C. Bolduc (born May 8, 1962) is an American conservative politician and retired United States Army brigadier general. Described as "far-right" by newspapers and wire services, he is the Republican nominee in the 2022 United States Senate election in New Hampshire, running against incumbent Democrat Maggie Hassan..." PRRfan ( talk) 16:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.Additionally, the BLPN discussion confirmed there was no consensus for the text as it currently exists. Springee ( talk) 17:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.Springee ( talk) 17:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
With Springee's approbation, at least, I'm going to be bold and move "far-right" out of Wikivoice, and append this to the first graf: "His political stances have been described as 'far-right' by newspapers and wire services" with cites. PRRfan ( talk) 21:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Uwieshu, your question [4] about the last sentence of the first paragraph probably belongs in this talk section. PRRfan, do you think it would make more sense to move the sentence from the last sentence of the first paragraph to the first sentence of the second paragraph? There it might serve as a topic sentence for that paragraph. Springee ( talk) 03:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
References
Is it worth mentioning that there are reports that the Democratic Party supported him to improve Hassan's chances to win this election? See: https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-for-maga-republicans-new-hampshire-republicans-don-bolduc-chuck-morse-maggie-hassan-11662759677 -- Einar Moses Wohltun ( talk) 09:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() | This
edit request to
Donald C. Bolduc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The profile is highly biased almost as if it is written by a Hassan staffer Jose Lipton ( talk) 04:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Bolduc's decision to join other Republicans in spreading the litter-box lie is noteworthy both as part of the national effort to spread this particular falsehood and as part of his own general willingness to spread falsehoods. PRRfan ( talk) 16:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The addition of the conspiracy theorist category to this article violates WP:BLPCAT. The sourcing in this article doesn't support that Bolduc is, himself a conspiracy theorist even if he is accused of spreading some conspiracies. Previous BLPN discussions have noted one is not the same as the other (example [ Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive331#Ann Coulter and a conspiracy theorist CAT tag]. Even Andrew Wakefield wasn't considered a conspiracy theorist despite his vaccine related claims[ Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive330#Category: British conspiracy theorists / Andrew Wakefield]. BLPCAT makes it clear that inclusion in a category is the same as saying a person is the thing in wikivoice. In particular the BLP section says, "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). " As the category violates BLP I am removing the recently added category from the article. Springee ( talk) 23:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)