This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
@ LiwenAristodemos and Zaathras:, what are the arguments for keeping/removing this content [1]? I'm leaning to agreeing that this isn't DUE for the article. None of the sources are particularly strong and it was coming out during the lead up to a contested election (ie sources were digging up dirt). More importantly, BLPCRIME applies. Her husband is not a public figure so accusations of crimes shouldn't be included here. I wanted to get other inputs rather than just removing. Springee ( talk) 11:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
toward establishing what type of person she isCareful with that line of thinking, please. Establishing the subject's goodness/badness isn't a goal of any Wikipedia biography. VQuakr ( talk) 17:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Muboshgu Someone is NOT a notable person just because they are related to a notable person. Boebert's husband is not a notable person. Just being married to a notable person does not make you one. Also, just because someone is notable does not mean that there should be a whole article on legal issues on every person who is related to the notable person as Valjean threatens. Boebert's husband is not the topic of the article. For example, Al Gore's son, Al Gore III, has a long, long track record of DUIs and other charges related to alcohol consumption. However, just because Gore III is the son of a notable former Vice President, who invented the Internet, that does not mean that Gore III's criminal charges should be in Wikipedia. And guess what? Gore III's legal issues are not in the Al Gore article because they are off-topic. It is as simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiwenAristodemos ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
establishing what type of person she is. – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Her lies are the real topic. The topic is only relevant here because she lied about it and made it notable enough for mention, and the short mention we have is sufficient. We don't need more. No one is threatening to write whole articles about criminal histories. The Streisand effect risk is very real, so can we drop this now? Kicking the dead horse is IDHT behavior and disruptive. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
look at the timing. It was done before an electionThe timing was hers. She released the book just before the election. When else should sources comment? You can't blame the sources for her timing or her statements. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 16:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
"The article should be IMPARTIAL"? No, editors should be impartial. Editors should remain neutral and document the biased sources and thus biased content here. The bias is from the sources, not from editors. Removing the bias of sources is an editorially biased decision and forbidden by NPOV.
Their ages at the time? He was 24 and she was 17, and by 18 birthed their first child. Talk about cradle robbing. She was 16 when they met, and she "fell in love with Jayson immediately". Their 17-year-old son follows the same pattern, already getting his girlfriend pregnant: "Now my son, when I approached him and told him, 'Tyler, I'm going to be a 36-year-old grandmother,' he said, 'Well, didn't you make Granny a 36-year-old granny?' 'I said, 'Yes, I did.' He said, 'Well then, it's hereditary.'" -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Here's what I think is common sense: (1) The domestic violence is due. (2) The fact that she was present is sourced to NYPost and laundered uncritically through other sources; it's not a proper argument for "proving" her hypocrisy in a
WP:SYNTH-y way, and it can't be mentioned inline. (3) He took a plea bargain (therefore it didn't go to trial), and she claims he's actually innocent; those two facts don't contradict each other, and we're committing
WP:SYNTH by saying she falsely claimed
, or saying on this talk page that she "lied", when no source says this. I'm really surprised by the tenor of this discussion. Want to claim that she lied? Find a source that says it.
DFlhb (
talk)
02:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
DFlhb, you reverted and greatly revised the paragraph, and I see some problems with it. To make this easier, we can compare the versions:
The version at the time you reverted it. The format was still basically as I had created it, as explained in my original edit summary: "Rework so context for even mentioning this is up front. Then provide background and reduce duplication."
In her 2022 memoir, Boebert falsely stated that before they were married, her husband (then 24 years old) never lewdly exposed himself to two underage girls in 2004, despite pleading guilty and serving jail time for the incident. She was 17 years old and present when it happened. [1] In 2004, Jayson Boebert, was arrested at a Colorado bowling alley and charged with public indecency and lewd exposure, for which he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to four days in jail with a subsequent two years of probation. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
Your version. Edit summary: "Removed "falsely" and "was present". Reordered, so her denial comes *after* the claim being denied, as is standard practice)"
In 2004, before they were married, her husband Jayson Boebert was arrested at a Colorado bowling alley and charged with public indecency and lewd exposure, for which he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to four days in jail with a subsequent two years of probation. In her 2022 memoir, Boebert denied his guilt. [2] [7] [8] [9] [6] [1]
The order is a matter that can be discussed, so let's hear what people think makes most sense. Our edit summaries explain our reasoning. I can understand your thinking, but I felt that, since the real topic is her lie about the matter, and this article is about her, I would place her first and provide the full details later. Like I said, this can be discussed.
Your deletions are more problematic because they remove important context:
All those things are very important. That's what the sources say. They describe her comment as a falsehood and say she was present. We should remain faithful to the sources by conveying their intent. All that context, including ages, should be restored. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 03:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
References
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 03:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
the real topic is her lie about the matter, but that's an original interpretation not present in the sources. Secondly, the idea that she was present is sourced to the NY Post, and although it is repeated by reliable sources, they attribute the claim to the NY Post rather than adopting it in their own words. Similar cases have been discussed repeatedly at WP:RSN, and I don't believe there's consensus that reliability is transitive. It would be something else if these reliable outlets had been able to source it or verify it themselves, or if they provided any evaluation at all of the NY Post's claim's reliability, but if they just attribute a NY Post claim, not in their own voice, without analysis, I don't believe that's usable in a BLP. Maybe a non-BLP, where we can be more lenient. DFlhb ( talk) 04:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
cautionis advised for The Independent's post-2016 articles.) At BLPN, the other sources that were brought up were Washington Examiner and Newsweek, which... don't deserve comment. WP:NEWSORG tells us that
reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact, and I take it as common-sensical that it implies that these sources provide less dueness than
well-established news outlets. I think editors arguing this is due have their work cut out for them; and same for providing counterarguments regarding coatracking. DFlhb ( talk) 20:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
The police report has names and birthdates, plus police and witness descriptions of the incidents (plural, as he exposed himself twice). See my talk page. It appears that, besides the 17 year-old bartender, only one of the two other girls was underage. Lauren was also underage at the time. One of the girls said he told her "I have a tattoo with your name written on my dick." Needless to say, he was drunk. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 23:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
She claims in the book that “no one could have known” that the bartender was a minor, adding that the girl had “pressed Jayson” to show her a “great tattoo in a private area.” Jayson, who Boebert admits had had too much to drink, merely “acted like he was going to unzip his pants,” Insider reported Tuesday.
How is this actually a conflict? He pleaded guilty, was sentenced and jailed, and never appealed. You are innocent until proven guilty. He was proved guilty under the way our judicial system works, like it or not. As for encyclopedic value, we have little info on her as she really doesn't have much history or current actions that aren't embarrassing. We publish what reliable sources publish. That's the way an encyclopedia works.The facts of exposure and who he exposed himself to (and ages) are commonly sourced and available - despite what Boebert says and claims regarding it. Attempts to
We publish what reliable sources publish. That's the way an encyclopedia works.If not - who is it directed to? Chaheel Riens ( talk) 13:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
proven in a court of lawis false. A plea deal, by definition, means that it never went to court. You and Wes assert the passage is "well-sourced"/"reliably sourced", without engaging with previous arguments that we're using outlets that are local, yellow at RSP, or opinionated. I'm also disappointed that no one asked you to strike your false claim that anyone supported "leaving out details such as ages of those involved" (no one did), and your claim that other editors are "deceptive" and attempting to "whitewash". DFlhb ( talk) 17:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
...your false claim that anyone supported "leaving out details such as ages of those involved" (no one did)...- a bizarre thing to say, as this entire discussion was started with a list of things you removed from the article. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 21:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
proven in a court of law. DFlhb ( talk) 18:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Uh, is there not a BLP/N section open about this right now. How is it still be reverted back and forth here? nableezy - 03:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Lauren Boebert has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the subject of critical race theory, it states that Lauren is against CRT and falsely claims “even though it is not taught in schools”. The quoted phrase above should be removed as it is not reprinting any factually backed up claims. 2600:1004:B02E:3B9F:487D:5E13:7D1:417C ( talk) 16:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
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, strengthening the integrity of elections and reversing "unconstitutional vaccine mandates, medical mandates."(Emphasis added). I'll add the word "Colorado" to make it "even though it is not taught in Colorado's schools". – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lauren Boebert has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lauren Boebert filed for divorce from Jayson Boebert in April 2023. Arentuthatgirl ( talk) 22:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
William Avery ( talk) 15:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
OP has been blocked from this talk page, and will be unable to respond for 1 month. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 15:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC) |
The subject of this BLP is a notable elected, national figure. That is undisputed. The early life and education of these individuals is standard information that Wikipedia always includes within its BLPs, both in the articles and infoboxes. That too, is undisputed. As long as the information is reliably sourced, it has been longstanding Wikipedia practice to include this fundamental information within these BLPs.
This information is also currently contained within the article of this subject. As it should be. It was also in the infobox for a long time, before it was removed without rationale or prior consensus. So why are some editors now trying to prevent restoring it in the Infobox? How is it standard and acceptable information for all the other BLPs on this project in both articles and infoboxes, but somehow unacceptable and not standard here? And how/why is it acceptable for the subject's article, but not the article's Infobox? Since this is an encyclopedia, can someone kindly provide an "encyclopedic" rationale for why this basic information is standard everywhere - again, even in this article - but now shouldn't be included within the article's infobox? Thanks. X4n6 ( talk) 16:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
advice about community normsexception to WP:INVOLVED, if Zaathras and Springee both agree that something doesn't belong in an article about a contentious figure in American politics you can safely assume there will be consensus against it's inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Education, e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant. If very little information is available or relevant, the |alma_mater= parameter may be more appropriate.IMO the intended usage is heavily implied to be reserved for higher-ed. Zaathras ( talk) 20:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)She earned a GED certificate in 2020, a month before her first election primary.
unduly self-serving or an exceptionalto the point that WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't apply? I would need to see a consensus that this inclusion is inappropriate before editing through full protection to remove it, as it's not a flagrant BLPvio or other obvious problem. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Claim: U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert received her GED diploma a few months before winning election to the House of Representatives. Rating: True
So there would definitely need to be a consensus to edit through full protection. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)This rating indicates that the primary elements of a claim are demonstrably true.
A lot to unpack here, so this will necessarily be a bit long. But I'll happily ping those who receive a specific rebuttal.
First, I would note that no one disputed my original contentions: 1) Subject is a notable, elected public figure; 2) The early life and education of those public figures is standard info for inclusion those articles; 3) This individual's education is already in the article; 4) The individual's education was previously in the infobox. Yet suddenly, now it's a problem.
I also asked for an encyclopedic rationale for exclusion, given all the above. The responses were:
1) "You really got a bee in your bonnet about this, eh?... That brings us to today, where you added it with an IMO dishonest edit summary of "ce". @ Zaathras:
It appears that the bonnet bees are from those seeking to remove this info, while failing to provide an encyclopedic rationale. As for "ce" - it stands for "copyedit" or "editing" the copy, consistent with the other transitive verbs listed as synonyms in [ Merriam Webster].
2) "Having an advanced degree is worthy of mentioning in the infobox; having a GED (or traditional HS diploma for that matter) isn't. The only reason we would include it is to disparage the subject." @ VQuakr:
This is an opinion, unsupported by any encyclopedic rationale. Who says an advanced degree is worthy of mentioning but a diploma is not? The category template says "EDUCATION:" - it does not say "ADVANCED DEGREE:" Further, an "advanced degree," again per Merriam Webster would mean [ "a university degree (such as a master's or doctor's degree) higher than a bachelor's"]. However, readers have every right to know the educational backgrounds of public officials. That seems so obvious that it shouldn't even need to be explained or defended. So to suggest that a bachelor's, master's, law, medical or doctoral degree is useful information, but because the person doesn't have them, suddenly that's not useful information, doesn't pass the common sense sniff test.
3) "I didn't see evidence that prior consensus had said include... Take Dave Thomas's bio..." @ Springee:.
But you didn't see evidence that prior consensus said to exclude it either. So it's inconsistent to support the edit that did so without that consensus. As I pointed out in the edit summary, [6] this edit had no consensus. Further, let's not take Dave Thomas' bio. Dave Thomas was not an elected, public official. He sold hamburgers.
4) "The spirit of the education field is routinely used for higher education degrees and awards." @ Kcmastrpc:
I have never seen awards listed in the education infobox, because they would not belong there. As for the "spirit" of the education field, that should be obvious. It is to report the education of the subject. If it is "routinely used for higher education" that is simply because elected public officials routinely have higher education degrees. But the purpose of the section is not to highlight the degrees themselves, but to highlight the education of the subject. Anything more regarding the "spirit" - to the extent that any such "spirit" is supported by reliable sources - would belong on the articles for those degrees.
5) Finally, several editors asked the legitimate question of if the subject even has a GED. @ ScottishFinnishRadish:, @ SPECIFICO:, @ Chaheel Riens: Several reliable sources - including the subject herself - support publishing an affirmative conclusion:
"A spokesperson for Lauren Boebert confirmed that the congresswoman (aged 34) had received her GED in 2020 after participating in an online GED prep course...So the claim that she earned her GED® just before she got elected is accurate. The GED (General Educational Development) education credential is equivalent to a regular high school diploma.
Boebert considered taking online GED classes as they are highly effective, but her busy schedule kept her from doing so. In 2020 she told the Durango Herald (Colorado) that she was actually a “real good student” at Rifle High, but that when she became a young, new mom, she prioritized raising her child over her academic education.
On her academic education background, Lauren Boebert claimed she never said she graduated from Rifle High but that she just went there to high school. - [ Best GED Classes].
"Boebert said, “So, I don’t really care what someone’s trying to dig up.” On her educational background, she said she never claimed to have graduated from Rifle High School. “I went to my high school,” she said...Boebert said she received her GED after completing a four-course review." - [ Durango Herald]
"The same people who will try and knock me for having a GED think this lady represents intelligence and eloquence." - [ Boebert's twitter]
"She dropped out of high school after becoming pregnant with the first of their four sons, and later earned a GED." [ New York Post].
"I didn't go through the typical education course," she added, noting that she did get her GED." [ People].
Several other sources also claimed that the subject never completed the GED, while others claim it took 3 to 4 attempts to pass and only after someone was hired to take the test. But in my view, none of this is reliably sourced. But the GED is, and as such, should be included in any encyclopedia worth its salt.
Finally, BLP policy is very clear. In WP:BLPSTYLE: "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." WP:BLPBALANCE: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." And especially, WP:BLPPUBLIC: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
So BLP policy clearly supports inclusion - in 3 separate places - of this RS material in the Infobox and the article. X4n6 ( talk) 00:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Articles should document in a non-partisan manner...And yet you used the judgmental term "whitewash" in the section header (which I removed as per WP:TALKHEADPOV. Look, educated folk clearly realize she's not. No need for us to add it or spend this much time debating it. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Just as an observation - why is it assumed that the intent to include is to disparage? That seems remarkably bad faith, when I would put forward that the intent is to promote. To turn it on its head - how many US representatives or politicians have taken on an office such as hers without a degree or similar? As another editor points out - there is a distinct lack. In that case it is actually an impressive feat that she has made it into politics without the same level of education as other reps. With this in mind, to exclude her achievement is the insult, not inclusion. The vibe here is essentially "unless you have a degree or better, you ain't educumated." Chaheel Riens ( talk) 19:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
in 2022, Boebert interfered in a report of physical abuse made by one of her sons. https://krdo.com/news/2023/05/25/he-doesnt-need-help-rep-lauren-boebert-tells-deputies-not-to-come-after-son-calls-911-for-help/ 130.180.88.101 ( talk) 22:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
This revert: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTDIARY. I don’t doubt that Boebert said what the RS said she said, I just don't think it's the kind of notable event that belongs in WP. We should mention that she's a grandmother when she is. Also WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. The son and the girl are not public figures, he's 17, so she's probably a juvenile, too. That Boebert shouted their private info from the rooftops is her problem, we shouldn't, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
...Boebert said that she will become a grandmother at age 36, saying "My mom was".... Fewer words without losing any relevant information. VQuakr ( talk) 16:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Boebert verified her son and his girlfriend are not married, but the rest of the section - that Boebert is to be a grandmother - seems perfectly valid and in alignment with other BLP articles - be they politician, pop star or any other notable subject, and is sourced enough to meet any other requirements. Given that the source we're using is reporting on a statement that she herself made regarding the marital status, her age and their age, it's hard to see how this should be suppressed by BLP concerns. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 16:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
it's hard to see how this should be suppressed by BLP concerns.it shouldn't. It should be trimmed down for due coverage and editorial reasons, not "suppressed" for any reason. Agreed there are no BLP concerns here. VQuakr ( talk) 17:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
My first objection was/is WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTDIARY, i.e., is this a notable event we want to mention in WP? The discussion so far says yes, with the exception of the word "unmarried". I just took another look at the source and added it to the education section. Boebert opposes sex ed in schools and "declined to reveal the age of the girlfriend, other than to say she’s over 14". So, 15, or why be coy about her age and say "over 14"? I'm still not comfortable with the argument that Boebert making the announcement removes any BLP concerns (son and girlfriend weren't the ones making the announcement) but this is not the hill I'm willing to die on. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
They aren't even named or otherwise identified.How many 17-yr. old sons with pregnant girlfriends does Boebert have? However, removing the clause about son and girlfriend also removes my BLP concerns, so support your proposed removal.
Trimm[ing] down for due coverage, IMO, should result in removal of the entire cringeworthy "dumb thing Boebert said"-de-jour, so I support that as my first choice. "Inspired me to be a mother at 18" - yeah, that and being pregnant. It's not a badge of honor or a badge of shame (these aren’t the 50s), just life in a small town. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Greetings Wikipedians! Please understand that I am not doing this for partisan reasons. No matter how you feel about the issues, a resolution to impeach the president is a "big deal." So I have placed both of her impeachment resolutions in a separate subsection, rather than burying them in a lot of other details about her tenure. Also added a couple of additional inline citations to reliable sources. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 ( talk) 14:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This edit reverted several of my edit edits, saying that removal was unexplained and that my edit of the Twitter lawsuit section had WP:UNDUE issues without explaining what the alleged undue issues are.
Boebert was criticized by her Republican colleagues for rushing the process. She agreed to meet to discuss the matter with Republican colleagues but did not attend the meeting, instead opting for an interview with Steve Bannon. [1]
References
Boebert has blocked her critics on Twitter. [1] She was sued for blocking a constituent, Bri Buentello. [2] A U.S. District court denied Buentello a preliminary injunction on June 24, 2021, finding a difference between her official government Twitter account and her personal account. [3] The case was dismissed with prejudice on October 28, 2022. [4] [5]
Boebert has blocked critics on her private Twitter account. [6] A constituent, Bri Buentello, sued her. [7] The case was dismissed with prejudice on October 28, 2022. [8] [9]
References
Boebert has blocked critics on her private Twitter account. A blocked constituent sued her, but the case was dismissed with prejudice in October 2022.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
I was curious what you guys think about the inclusion of legislation on her page. Recently she had strong bipartisan support for The Pueblo Jobs Act, and after speaking with several community leaders in her district they stated they'd like to see more of that info on her Wikipedia page. I think under every issue there should be a couple of key pieces of legislation to show where the House stands on her work. We can write a brief few sentences about the bill and the reactions to it as well as its status in the Congress. I would recommend only putting bills that have passed the house and bills/amendments that have been entered into law.
There is a lot of talk about her more controversial things on here and I think its only fair to her constituents and all Americans that Wikipedia doesn't' paint a picture about someone but instead allows the community to do so. We must be able to talk about the good things these people do.
I can personally work to include these items but I'd love to hear what people think. Afakhoury1007 ( talk) 21:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
"and after speaking with several community leaders in her district"line, if you would. Who spoke with community leaders regarding editing this Wikipedia article, Boebert herself? You? If it was you, do you have a connection, either volunteer or paid, with Lauren Boebert, her official office or her campaign office? Zaathras ( talk) 01:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Anthony Fakhoury, Boebert’s congressional spokesman, said "there's no comments from our office regarding anything that occurred.Colorado Sun Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
In the personal life section there is a long list of criminal charges, can this section be moved to a new seperate criminal record section? 2600:1011:B32F:1C7C:ECBE:2972:A65F:3902 ( talk) 20:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Boebert, while not officially named in the police report, she was filmed on security being escorted out after complaints of her vaping, being disruptive, and recording the play were reported to the Buell Theatre staff. After refusing to leave, the theater called the police on them, that was when Boebert left, flipped off a theater usher. She later posted “It’s true, I did thoroughly enjoy the AMAZING Beetlejuice at the Buell Theatre and I plead guilty to laughing and singing too loud! Everyone should go see it if you get the chance this week and please let me know how it ends,”
Her campaign manager confirmed she was the person at the play who was removed, but was unaware of the phone rule and insists Lauren didn't vape. Melofy ( talk) 18:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Of course it belongs in the article. There is video proof of her vaping and groping and being groped at this theater. It has been circulating all over the place including YouTube. 16 September 2023 SN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.150.139 ( talk) 23:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
It is difficult to imagine a video of a politician, at a family friendly public event, getting their breasts massaged while they rub the crotch of their partner's pants, not having a lasting impact on their political career.Once I would have said it's difficult to imagine a presidential candidate running with 91 indictments and gaining popularity with each arrest. We live in different times and perhaps this will help her poll numbers. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 13:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
There are no indications in the original reports that the disturbance was anything other than subjecting the other patrons to vape exposure and keeping them from seeing and hearing the show by singing along and arm waving. There don't seem to have been any complaints about any lewd behavior. That should stay out of the article, acts between consenting adults in a darkened theater, i.e., semi-private, except for the later release of the video because Boebert denied vaping and disturbance. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
After surveillance video footage was publicized that also showed Boebert and her companion fondling each other in their seats, she apologized for "[falling] short of her values" and vaping. She said that "she had previously denied it only because she 'did not recall' having done so".That's not supported by the sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Lauren Boebert says she ‘fell short of values’ after Beetlejuice groping videoand indicates the footage is the exact same:
The CCTV video also shows Boebert’s guest fondling her breasts after they had taken their seats. Boebert is also seen petting her guest’s crotch in the venue.Edit it if you so wish, but I'm not seeing how this isn't supported by the sources. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 16:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Another video appears to show Boebert and her male companion fondling each other sexually during the show. Boebert did not directly address the second video in her Friday apology. She did mention her vaping but claimed that she had previously denied it only because she "did not recall" having done so.NYT:
touching and carrying on. Video: inconclusive about what she is doing. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I hate to ask this, but is there any RS reporting or statement from Boebert that she and the fellow knew one another before the show? I've seen the cautious and ambiguous word "companion" used. But I don't see any Verification of any acquaintance or relationship between the two. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I always thought Q. was a cool guy and a Democrat.Headline: "revealed as a DEMOCRAT bar owner". The NY Post says "a source confirmed". Wikipedia's text actually went them one better: "[full name], a local bar owner and registered Democrat". The Pueblo Chieftain in Boebert's district reported the incident and the tabloids' reporting. They were able to disprove one of the claims: "One of the key assertions in the Daily Mail story appears to be false. Public records show that G. is registered as an unaffiliated voter, not with the Democratic Party. G. appears to not have made any political contributions to county and state elections in Colorado. His name also did not appear in a search of federal campaign finance records, which itemizes contributions from donors who contribute at least $200 during an election cycle." Chances are the Daily Mail used a face recognition program, found a bar owner in Colorado who resembles the man in the footage, made up the rest, and the NY Post took it from there. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 10:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
maybe overtly animated— based on the gold lamé dress and the "animated behavior", I had a sneaking suspicion that maybe she had confused Beetlejuice with the Rocky Horror Show, dress the part and act and sing along. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
The Beetlejuice incident is correctly included. It is a political scandal, involves recorded public actions, has been widely covered by sources, and triggered two public responses from the subject. starship .paint ( RUN) 07:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lauren Boebert has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change From 2013 to 2022, she owned Shooters Grill, a restaurant in Rifle, Colorado, where staff members were encouraged to carry firearms openly.
to
From 2013 to 2022, she owned Shooters Grill, a restaurant in Rifle, Colorado, where Staff members were encouraged to carry firearms openly. Her restaurant was closed initially due to health code violations and the Garfield County Health Department suspended the restaurant's license when they remained opened despite a cease and desist order. Juliette.Mount ( talk) 18:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lauren Boebert has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states that - "She has said that one of her top legislative priorities is to eliminate critical race theory from schools, even though it is not taught in Colorado schools.[146] " The footnote speaks to her campaign position, not to whether or not CRT is taught in Colorado schools. I have taught in Denver Public Schools, and whether CRT is taught or not, is at the least, a healthy debate. While not "formally" in tie curriculum, I believe there is amply evidence to asserts that at least some CRT theories are seeping into at least some schools. I personally, would make that argument. Much of this turns on how one defines CRT. At the very least, a blanket statement that CRT is no taught in Colorado public schools, without any kind of academic or scholarly citation, cannot be maintained. 2603:300B:C33:5000:7012:159E:7711:2AFA ( talk) 21:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
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, strengthening the integrity of elections and reversing “unconstitutional vaccine mandates, medical mandates.”What you personally believe is not a reliable source. Critical race theory has an actual definition and so does not "turn" on how one defines it. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
We had an RFC two years ago that decided to not call Boebert "far-right" at the top of the lead, but rather it was pushed down into the third paragraph of the lead: "Boebert's views are broadly considered far-right."
This treatment is inconsistent with the BLPs of contemporaries such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar and Wendy Rogers, who are each described as "an American far-right politician" in the first sentence of their BLPs.
"far-right" is supported by copious sources in each BLP.
So, which if any of the BLPs should change to provide consistency? soibangla ( talk) 05:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
@ LiwenAristodemos and Zaathras:, what are the arguments for keeping/removing this content [1]? I'm leaning to agreeing that this isn't DUE for the article. None of the sources are particularly strong and it was coming out during the lead up to a contested election (ie sources were digging up dirt). More importantly, BLPCRIME applies. Her husband is not a public figure so accusations of crimes shouldn't be included here. I wanted to get other inputs rather than just removing. Springee ( talk) 11:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
toward establishing what type of person she isCareful with that line of thinking, please. Establishing the subject's goodness/badness isn't a goal of any Wikipedia biography. VQuakr ( talk) 17:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Muboshgu Someone is NOT a notable person just because they are related to a notable person. Boebert's husband is not a notable person. Just being married to a notable person does not make you one. Also, just because someone is notable does not mean that there should be a whole article on legal issues on every person who is related to the notable person as Valjean threatens. Boebert's husband is not the topic of the article. For example, Al Gore's son, Al Gore III, has a long, long track record of DUIs and other charges related to alcohol consumption. However, just because Gore III is the son of a notable former Vice President, who invented the Internet, that does not mean that Gore III's criminal charges should be in Wikipedia. And guess what? Gore III's legal issues are not in the Al Gore article because they are off-topic. It is as simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiwenAristodemos ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
establishing what type of person she is. – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Her lies are the real topic. The topic is only relevant here because she lied about it and made it notable enough for mention, and the short mention we have is sufficient. We don't need more. No one is threatening to write whole articles about criminal histories. The Streisand effect risk is very real, so can we drop this now? Kicking the dead horse is IDHT behavior and disruptive. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
look at the timing. It was done before an electionThe timing was hers. She released the book just before the election. When else should sources comment? You can't blame the sources for her timing or her statements. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 16:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
"The article should be IMPARTIAL"? No, editors should be impartial. Editors should remain neutral and document the biased sources and thus biased content here. The bias is from the sources, not from editors. Removing the bias of sources is an editorially biased decision and forbidden by NPOV.
Their ages at the time? He was 24 and she was 17, and by 18 birthed their first child. Talk about cradle robbing. She was 16 when they met, and she "fell in love with Jayson immediately". Their 17-year-old son follows the same pattern, already getting his girlfriend pregnant: "Now my son, when I approached him and told him, 'Tyler, I'm going to be a 36-year-old grandmother,' he said, 'Well, didn't you make Granny a 36-year-old granny?' 'I said, 'Yes, I did.' He said, 'Well then, it's hereditary.'" -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Here's what I think is common sense: (1) The domestic violence is due. (2) The fact that she was present is sourced to NYPost and laundered uncritically through other sources; it's not a proper argument for "proving" her hypocrisy in a
WP:SYNTH-y way, and it can't be mentioned inline. (3) He took a plea bargain (therefore it didn't go to trial), and she claims he's actually innocent; those two facts don't contradict each other, and we're committing
WP:SYNTH by saying she falsely claimed
, or saying on this talk page that she "lied", when no source says this. I'm really surprised by the tenor of this discussion. Want to claim that she lied? Find a source that says it.
DFlhb (
talk)
02:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
DFlhb, you reverted and greatly revised the paragraph, and I see some problems with it. To make this easier, we can compare the versions:
The version at the time you reverted it. The format was still basically as I had created it, as explained in my original edit summary: "Rework so context for even mentioning this is up front. Then provide background and reduce duplication."
In her 2022 memoir, Boebert falsely stated that before they were married, her husband (then 24 years old) never lewdly exposed himself to two underage girls in 2004, despite pleading guilty and serving jail time for the incident. She was 17 years old and present when it happened. [1] In 2004, Jayson Boebert, was arrested at a Colorado bowling alley and charged with public indecency and lewd exposure, for which he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to four days in jail with a subsequent two years of probation. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
Your version. Edit summary: "Removed "falsely" and "was present". Reordered, so her denial comes *after* the claim being denied, as is standard practice)"
In 2004, before they were married, her husband Jayson Boebert was arrested at a Colorado bowling alley and charged with public indecency and lewd exposure, for which he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to four days in jail with a subsequent two years of probation. In her 2022 memoir, Boebert denied his guilt. [2] [7] [8] [9] [6] [1]
The order is a matter that can be discussed, so let's hear what people think makes most sense. Our edit summaries explain our reasoning. I can understand your thinking, but I felt that, since the real topic is her lie about the matter, and this article is about her, I would place her first and provide the full details later. Like I said, this can be discussed.
Your deletions are more problematic because they remove important context:
All those things are very important. That's what the sources say. They describe her comment as a falsehood and say she was present. We should remain faithful to the sources by conveying their intent. All that context, including ages, should be restored. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 03:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
References
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 03:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
the real topic is her lie about the matter, but that's an original interpretation not present in the sources. Secondly, the idea that she was present is sourced to the NY Post, and although it is repeated by reliable sources, they attribute the claim to the NY Post rather than adopting it in their own words. Similar cases have been discussed repeatedly at WP:RSN, and I don't believe there's consensus that reliability is transitive. It would be something else if these reliable outlets had been able to source it or verify it themselves, or if they provided any evaluation at all of the NY Post's claim's reliability, but if they just attribute a NY Post claim, not in their own voice, without analysis, I don't believe that's usable in a BLP. Maybe a non-BLP, where we can be more lenient. DFlhb ( talk) 04:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
cautionis advised for The Independent's post-2016 articles.) At BLPN, the other sources that were brought up were Washington Examiner and Newsweek, which... don't deserve comment. WP:NEWSORG tells us that
reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact, and I take it as common-sensical that it implies that these sources provide less dueness than
well-established news outlets. I think editors arguing this is due have their work cut out for them; and same for providing counterarguments regarding coatracking. DFlhb ( talk) 20:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
The police report has names and birthdates, plus police and witness descriptions of the incidents (plural, as he exposed himself twice). See my talk page. It appears that, besides the 17 year-old bartender, only one of the two other girls was underage. Lauren was also underage at the time. One of the girls said he told her "I have a tattoo with your name written on my dick." Needless to say, he was drunk. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 23:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
She claims in the book that “no one could have known” that the bartender was a minor, adding that the girl had “pressed Jayson” to show her a “great tattoo in a private area.” Jayson, who Boebert admits had had too much to drink, merely “acted like he was going to unzip his pants,” Insider reported Tuesday.
How is this actually a conflict? He pleaded guilty, was sentenced and jailed, and never appealed. You are innocent until proven guilty. He was proved guilty under the way our judicial system works, like it or not. As for encyclopedic value, we have little info on her as she really doesn't have much history or current actions that aren't embarrassing. We publish what reliable sources publish. That's the way an encyclopedia works.The facts of exposure and who he exposed himself to (and ages) are commonly sourced and available - despite what Boebert says and claims regarding it. Attempts to
We publish what reliable sources publish. That's the way an encyclopedia works.If not - who is it directed to? Chaheel Riens ( talk) 13:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
proven in a court of lawis false. A plea deal, by definition, means that it never went to court. You and Wes assert the passage is "well-sourced"/"reliably sourced", without engaging with previous arguments that we're using outlets that are local, yellow at RSP, or opinionated. I'm also disappointed that no one asked you to strike your false claim that anyone supported "leaving out details such as ages of those involved" (no one did), and your claim that other editors are "deceptive" and attempting to "whitewash". DFlhb ( talk) 17:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
...your false claim that anyone supported "leaving out details such as ages of those involved" (no one did)...- a bizarre thing to say, as this entire discussion was started with a list of things you removed from the article. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 21:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
proven in a court of law. DFlhb ( talk) 18:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Uh, is there not a BLP/N section open about this right now. How is it still be reverted back and forth here? nableezy - 03:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Lauren Boebert has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the subject of critical race theory, it states that Lauren is against CRT and falsely claims “even though it is not taught in schools”. The quoted phrase above should be removed as it is not reprinting any factually backed up claims. 2600:1004:B02E:3B9F:487D:5E13:7D1:417C ( talk) 16:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
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, strengthening the integrity of elections and reversing "unconstitutional vaccine mandates, medical mandates."(Emphasis added). I'll add the word "Colorado" to make it "even though it is not taught in Colorado's schools". – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lauren Boebert has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lauren Boebert filed for divorce from Jayson Boebert in April 2023. Arentuthatgirl ( talk) 22:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
William Avery ( talk) 15:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
OP has been blocked from this talk page, and will be unable to respond for 1 month. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 15:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC) |
The subject of this BLP is a notable elected, national figure. That is undisputed. The early life and education of these individuals is standard information that Wikipedia always includes within its BLPs, both in the articles and infoboxes. That too, is undisputed. As long as the information is reliably sourced, it has been longstanding Wikipedia practice to include this fundamental information within these BLPs.
This information is also currently contained within the article of this subject. As it should be. It was also in the infobox for a long time, before it was removed without rationale or prior consensus. So why are some editors now trying to prevent restoring it in the Infobox? How is it standard and acceptable information for all the other BLPs on this project in both articles and infoboxes, but somehow unacceptable and not standard here? And how/why is it acceptable for the subject's article, but not the article's Infobox? Since this is an encyclopedia, can someone kindly provide an "encyclopedic" rationale for why this basic information is standard everywhere - again, even in this article - but now shouldn't be included within the article's infobox? Thanks. X4n6 ( talk) 16:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
advice about community normsexception to WP:INVOLVED, if Zaathras and Springee both agree that something doesn't belong in an article about a contentious figure in American politics you can safely assume there will be consensus against it's inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Education, e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant. If very little information is available or relevant, the |alma_mater= parameter may be more appropriate.IMO the intended usage is heavily implied to be reserved for higher-ed. Zaathras ( talk) 20:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)She earned a GED certificate in 2020, a month before her first election primary.
unduly self-serving or an exceptionalto the point that WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't apply? I would need to see a consensus that this inclusion is inappropriate before editing through full protection to remove it, as it's not a flagrant BLPvio or other obvious problem. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Claim: U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert received her GED diploma a few months before winning election to the House of Representatives. Rating: True
So there would definitely need to be a consensus to edit through full protection. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)This rating indicates that the primary elements of a claim are demonstrably true.
A lot to unpack here, so this will necessarily be a bit long. But I'll happily ping those who receive a specific rebuttal.
First, I would note that no one disputed my original contentions: 1) Subject is a notable, elected public figure; 2) The early life and education of those public figures is standard info for inclusion those articles; 3) This individual's education is already in the article; 4) The individual's education was previously in the infobox. Yet suddenly, now it's a problem.
I also asked for an encyclopedic rationale for exclusion, given all the above. The responses were:
1) "You really got a bee in your bonnet about this, eh?... That brings us to today, where you added it with an IMO dishonest edit summary of "ce". @ Zaathras:
It appears that the bonnet bees are from those seeking to remove this info, while failing to provide an encyclopedic rationale. As for "ce" - it stands for "copyedit" or "editing" the copy, consistent with the other transitive verbs listed as synonyms in [ Merriam Webster].
2) "Having an advanced degree is worthy of mentioning in the infobox; having a GED (or traditional HS diploma for that matter) isn't. The only reason we would include it is to disparage the subject." @ VQuakr:
This is an opinion, unsupported by any encyclopedic rationale. Who says an advanced degree is worthy of mentioning but a diploma is not? The category template says "EDUCATION:" - it does not say "ADVANCED DEGREE:" Further, an "advanced degree," again per Merriam Webster would mean [ "a university degree (such as a master's or doctor's degree) higher than a bachelor's"]. However, readers have every right to know the educational backgrounds of public officials. That seems so obvious that it shouldn't even need to be explained or defended. So to suggest that a bachelor's, master's, law, medical or doctoral degree is useful information, but because the person doesn't have them, suddenly that's not useful information, doesn't pass the common sense sniff test.
3) "I didn't see evidence that prior consensus had said include... Take Dave Thomas's bio..." @ Springee:.
But you didn't see evidence that prior consensus said to exclude it either. So it's inconsistent to support the edit that did so without that consensus. As I pointed out in the edit summary, [6] this edit had no consensus. Further, let's not take Dave Thomas' bio. Dave Thomas was not an elected, public official. He sold hamburgers.
4) "The spirit of the education field is routinely used for higher education degrees and awards." @ Kcmastrpc:
I have never seen awards listed in the education infobox, because they would not belong there. As for the "spirit" of the education field, that should be obvious. It is to report the education of the subject. If it is "routinely used for higher education" that is simply because elected public officials routinely have higher education degrees. But the purpose of the section is not to highlight the degrees themselves, but to highlight the education of the subject. Anything more regarding the "spirit" - to the extent that any such "spirit" is supported by reliable sources - would belong on the articles for those degrees.
5) Finally, several editors asked the legitimate question of if the subject even has a GED. @ ScottishFinnishRadish:, @ SPECIFICO:, @ Chaheel Riens: Several reliable sources - including the subject herself - support publishing an affirmative conclusion:
"A spokesperson for Lauren Boebert confirmed that the congresswoman (aged 34) had received her GED in 2020 after participating in an online GED prep course...So the claim that she earned her GED® just before she got elected is accurate. The GED (General Educational Development) education credential is equivalent to a regular high school diploma.
Boebert considered taking online GED classes as they are highly effective, but her busy schedule kept her from doing so. In 2020 she told the Durango Herald (Colorado) that she was actually a “real good student” at Rifle High, but that when she became a young, new mom, she prioritized raising her child over her academic education.
On her academic education background, Lauren Boebert claimed she never said she graduated from Rifle High but that she just went there to high school. - [ Best GED Classes].
"Boebert said, “So, I don’t really care what someone’s trying to dig up.” On her educational background, she said she never claimed to have graduated from Rifle High School. “I went to my high school,” she said...Boebert said she received her GED after completing a four-course review." - [ Durango Herald]
"The same people who will try and knock me for having a GED think this lady represents intelligence and eloquence." - [ Boebert's twitter]
"She dropped out of high school after becoming pregnant with the first of their four sons, and later earned a GED." [ New York Post].
"I didn't go through the typical education course," she added, noting that she did get her GED." [ People].
Several other sources also claimed that the subject never completed the GED, while others claim it took 3 to 4 attempts to pass and only after someone was hired to take the test. But in my view, none of this is reliably sourced. But the GED is, and as such, should be included in any encyclopedia worth its salt.
Finally, BLP policy is very clear. In WP:BLPSTYLE: "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." WP:BLPBALANCE: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." And especially, WP:BLPPUBLIC: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
So BLP policy clearly supports inclusion - in 3 separate places - of this RS material in the Infobox and the article. X4n6 ( talk) 00:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Articles should document in a non-partisan manner...And yet you used the judgmental term "whitewash" in the section header (which I removed as per WP:TALKHEADPOV. Look, educated folk clearly realize she's not. No need for us to add it or spend this much time debating it. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Just as an observation - why is it assumed that the intent to include is to disparage? That seems remarkably bad faith, when I would put forward that the intent is to promote. To turn it on its head - how many US representatives or politicians have taken on an office such as hers without a degree or similar? As another editor points out - there is a distinct lack. In that case it is actually an impressive feat that she has made it into politics without the same level of education as other reps. With this in mind, to exclude her achievement is the insult, not inclusion. The vibe here is essentially "unless you have a degree or better, you ain't educumated." Chaheel Riens ( talk) 19:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
in 2022, Boebert interfered in a report of physical abuse made by one of her sons. https://krdo.com/news/2023/05/25/he-doesnt-need-help-rep-lauren-boebert-tells-deputies-not-to-come-after-son-calls-911-for-help/ 130.180.88.101 ( talk) 22:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
This revert: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTDIARY. I don’t doubt that Boebert said what the RS said she said, I just don't think it's the kind of notable event that belongs in WP. We should mention that she's a grandmother when she is. Also WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. The son and the girl are not public figures, he's 17, so she's probably a juvenile, too. That Boebert shouted their private info from the rooftops is her problem, we shouldn't, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
...Boebert said that she will become a grandmother at age 36, saying "My mom was".... Fewer words without losing any relevant information. VQuakr ( talk) 16:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Boebert verified her son and his girlfriend are not married, but the rest of the section - that Boebert is to be a grandmother - seems perfectly valid and in alignment with other BLP articles - be they politician, pop star or any other notable subject, and is sourced enough to meet any other requirements. Given that the source we're using is reporting on a statement that she herself made regarding the marital status, her age and their age, it's hard to see how this should be suppressed by BLP concerns. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 16:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
it's hard to see how this should be suppressed by BLP concerns.it shouldn't. It should be trimmed down for due coverage and editorial reasons, not "suppressed" for any reason. Agreed there are no BLP concerns here. VQuakr ( talk) 17:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
My first objection was/is WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTDIARY, i.e., is this a notable event we want to mention in WP? The discussion so far says yes, with the exception of the word "unmarried". I just took another look at the source and added it to the education section. Boebert opposes sex ed in schools and "declined to reveal the age of the girlfriend, other than to say she’s over 14". So, 15, or why be coy about her age and say "over 14"? I'm still not comfortable with the argument that Boebert making the announcement removes any BLP concerns (son and girlfriend weren't the ones making the announcement) but this is not the hill I'm willing to die on. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
They aren't even named or otherwise identified.How many 17-yr. old sons with pregnant girlfriends does Boebert have? However, removing the clause about son and girlfriend also removes my BLP concerns, so support your proposed removal.
Trimm[ing] down for due coverage, IMO, should result in removal of the entire cringeworthy "dumb thing Boebert said"-de-jour, so I support that as my first choice. "Inspired me to be a mother at 18" - yeah, that and being pregnant. It's not a badge of honor or a badge of shame (these aren’t the 50s), just life in a small town. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Greetings Wikipedians! Please understand that I am not doing this for partisan reasons. No matter how you feel about the issues, a resolution to impeach the president is a "big deal." So I have placed both of her impeachment resolutions in a separate subsection, rather than burying them in a lot of other details about her tenure. Also added a couple of additional inline citations to reliable sources. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 ( talk) 14:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This edit reverted several of my edit edits, saying that removal was unexplained and that my edit of the Twitter lawsuit section had WP:UNDUE issues without explaining what the alleged undue issues are.
Boebert was criticized by her Republican colleagues for rushing the process. She agreed to meet to discuss the matter with Republican colleagues but did not attend the meeting, instead opting for an interview with Steve Bannon. [1]
References
Boebert has blocked her critics on Twitter. [1] She was sued for blocking a constituent, Bri Buentello. [2] A U.S. District court denied Buentello a preliminary injunction on June 24, 2021, finding a difference between her official government Twitter account and her personal account. [3] The case was dismissed with prejudice on October 28, 2022. [4] [5]
Boebert has blocked critics on her private Twitter account. [6] A constituent, Bri Buentello, sued her. [7] The case was dismissed with prejudice on October 28, 2022. [8] [9]
References
Boebert has blocked critics on her private Twitter account. A blocked constituent sued her, but the case was dismissed with prejudice in October 2022.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
I was curious what you guys think about the inclusion of legislation on her page. Recently she had strong bipartisan support for The Pueblo Jobs Act, and after speaking with several community leaders in her district they stated they'd like to see more of that info on her Wikipedia page. I think under every issue there should be a couple of key pieces of legislation to show where the House stands on her work. We can write a brief few sentences about the bill and the reactions to it as well as its status in the Congress. I would recommend only putting bills that have passed the house and bills/amendments that have been entered into law.
There is a lot of talk about her more controversial things on here and I think its only fair to her constituents and all Americans that Wikipedia doesn't' paint a picture about someone but instead allows the community to do so. We must be able to talk about the good things these people do.
I can personally work to include these items but I'd love to hear what people think. Afakhoury1007 ( talk) 21:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
"and after speaking with several community leaders in her district"line, if you would. Who spoke with community leaders regarding editing this Wikipedia article, Boebert herself? You? If it was you, do you have a connection, either volunteer or paid, with Lauren Boebert, her official office or her campaign office? Zaathras ( talk) 01:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Anthony Fakhoury, Boebert’s congressional spokesman, said "there's no comments from our office regarding anything that occurred.Colorado Sun Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
In the personal life section there is a long list of criminal charges, can this section be moved to a new seperate criminal record section? 2600:1011:B32F:1C7C:ECBE:2972:A65F:3902 ( talk) 20:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Boebert, while not officially named in the police report, she was filmed on security being escorted out after complaints of her vaping, being disruptive, and recording the play were reported to the Buell Theatre staff. After refusing to leave, the theater called the police on them, that was when Boebert left, flipped off a theater usher. She later posted “It’s true, I did thoroughly enjoy the AMAZING Beetlejuice at the Buell Theatre and I plead guilty to laughing and singing too loud! Everyone should go see it if you get the chance this week and please let me know how it ends,”
Her campaign manager confirmed she was the person at the play who was removed, but was unaware of the phone rule and insists Lauren didn't vape. Melofy ( talk) 18:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Of course it belongs in the article. There is video proof of her vaping and groping and being groped at this theater. It has been circulating all over the place including YouTube. 16 September 2023 SN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.150.139 ( talk) 23:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
It is difficult to imagine a video of a politician, at a family friendly public event, getting their breasts massaged while they rub the crotch of their partner's pants, not having a lasting impact on their political career.Once I would have said it's difficult to imagine a presidential candidate running with 91 indictments and gaining popularity with each arrest. We live in different times and perhaps this will help her poll numbers. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 13:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
There are no indications in the original reports that the disturbance was anything other than subjecting the other patrons to vape exposure and keeping them from seeing and hearing the show by singing along and arm waving. There don't seem to have been any complaints about any lewd behavior. That should stay out of the article, acts between consenting adults in a darkened theater, i.e., semi-private, except for the later release of the video because Boebert denied vaping and disturbance. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
After surveillance video footage was publicized that also showed Boebert and her companion fondling each other in their seats, she apologized for "[falling] short of her values" and vaping. She said that "she had previously denied it only because she 'did not recall' having done so".That's not supported by the sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Lauren Boebert says she ‘fell short of values’ after Beetlejuice groping videoand indicates the footage is the exact same:
The CCTV video also shows Boebert’s guest fondling her breasts after they had taken their seats. Boebert is also seen petting her guest’s crotch in the venue.Edit it if you so wish, but I'm not seeing how this isn't supported by the sources. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 16:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Another video appears to show Boebert and her male companion fondling each other sexually during the show. Boebert did not directly address the second video in her Friday apology. She did mention her vaping but claimed that she had previously denied it only because she "did not recall" having done so.NYT:
touching and carrying on. Video: inconclusive about what she is doing. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I hate to ask this, but is there any RS reporting or statement from Boebert that she and the fellow knew one another before the show? I've seen the cautious and ambiguous word "companion" used. But I don't see any Verification of any acquaintance or relationship between the two. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I always thought Q. was a cool guy and a Democrat.Headline: "revealed as a DEMOCRAT bar owner". The NY Post says "a source confirmed". Wikipedia's text actually went them one better: "[full name], a local bar owner and registered Democrat". The Pueblo Chieftain in Boebert's district reported the incident and the tabloids' reporting. They were able to disprove one of the claims: "One of the key assertions in the Daily Mail story appears to be false. Public records show that G. is registered as an unaffiliated voter, not with the Democratic Party. G. appears to not have made any political contributions to county and state elections in Colorado. His name also did not appear in a search of federal campaign finance records, which itemizes contributions from donors who contribute at least $200 during an election cycle." Chances are the Daily Mail used a face recognition program, found a bar owner in Colorado who resembles the man in the footage, made up the rest, and the NY Post took it from there. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 10:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
maybe overtly animated— based on the gold lamé dress and the "animated behavior", I had a sneaking suspicion that maybe she had confused Beetlejuice with the Rocky Horror Show, dress the part and act and sing along. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
The Beetlejuice incident is correctly included. It is a political scandal, involves recorded public actions, has been widely covered by sources, and triggered two public responses from the subject. starship .paint ( RUN) 07:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lauren Boebert has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change From 2013 to 2022, she owned Shooters Grill, a restaurant in Rifle, Colorado, where staff members were encouraged to carry firearms openly.
to
From 2013 to 2022, she owned Shooters Grill, a restaurant in Rifle, Colorado, where Staff members were encouraged to carry firearms openly. Her restaurant was closed initially due to health code violations and the Garfield County Health Department suspended the restaurant's license when they remained opened despite a cease and desist order. Juliette.Mount ( talk) 18:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lauren Boebert has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states that - "She has said that one of her top legislative priorities is to eliminate critical race theory from schools, even though it is not taught in Colorado schools.[146] " The footnote speaks to her campaign position, not to whether or not CRT is taught in Colorado schools. I have taught in Denver Public Schools, and whether CRT is taught or not, is at the least, a healthy debate. While not "formally" in tie curriculum, I believe there is amply evidence to asserts that at least some CRT theories are seeping into at least some schools. I personally, would make that argument. Much of this turns on how one defines CRT. At the very least, a blanket statement that CRT is no taught in Colorado public schools, without any kind of academic or scholarly citation, cannot be maintained. 2603:300B:C33:5000:7012:159E:7711:2AFA ( talk) 21:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
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, strengthening the integrity of elections and reversing “unconstitutional vaccine mandates, medical mandates.”What you personally believe is not a reliable source. Critical race theory has an actual definition and so does not "turn" on how one defines it. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
We had an RFC two years ago that decided to not call Boebert "far-right" at the top of the lead, but rather it was pushed down into the third paragraph of the lead: "Boebert's views are broadly considered far-right."
This treatment is inconsistent with the BLPs of contemporaries such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar and Wendy Rogers, who are each described as "an American far-right politician" in the first sentence of their BLPs.
"far-right" is supported by copious sources in each BLP.
So, which if any of the BLPs should change to provide consistency? soibangla ( talk) 05:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)