Talk:Lauren Boebert: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 12:08, 10 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lauren Boebert article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

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.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

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.

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.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Colorado / 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Colorado portal This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado, our collaboration to create, improve, and update Wikipedia articles about the U.S. State of Colorado. To comment about this article, select the Add topic tab above. For questions about, or to make suggestions for Colorado articles, go to our project's talk page. We invite you to join us!
	This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Politics: American / Gun politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Gun politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

January 10 to 16, 2021 (25th)

A fact from Lauren Boebert appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 July 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

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

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lauren Boebert.

Wikipedia

Category:American critics of Islam

@Objective3000 could you please elaborate what in the article text supports this cat? Additionally, it's unclear to me what this category is even supposed to be, it appears to be a discriminatory list of people who've denounced Islamic Terrorism at some point. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section: Lauren_Boebert#Comments_on_representatives_of_other_religions O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned section is political mudslinging. Additionally, Criticism of Islam would be the closest sister category since American Critics of Islam doesn't exist; and Boebert's trolling of Omar doesn't necessarily rise to the level of bigotry outlined in the related article. I digress though, we can let other editors chime in. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, Category:American critics of Islam has a lot of political mudslingers. Shouldn't that sort of category be for scholarly criticism? That might be a BLP/N issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of critics of Islam also exists, and many of the names in the category I'm opposed to aren't in this article either (including Boebert). I tend to agree though, this may be something that should be brought to a noticeboard for broader discussion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KC, these cats are all lists of articles. Not articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I presume that categories are usually attached to an article, or at least contextualized in some way; however, Category:American critics of Islam lacks either of these characteristics, so I'm stretching to find some sort of relation to provide context of what it's purpose actually is. Emphasis on "stretching". :) Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it fits quite well as it stands. As Muboshgu says, the list appears to be a list of mudslingers, not scholarly critics. Alas most critics of Islam probably are mudslingers and the article text suggests she is one. I haven't seen her write any scholarly articles on Islam. Should such a list exist? I'm ambivalent. Never really warmed to the idea of cats. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. There are 151 links in that cat. She would seem to fit as a mudslinger. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per CATREL a category of mudslingers should probably be deleted. Springee (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on cats. But CATREL doesn't appear to apply. That speaks to subjects who have publicly self-identified with a religious belief. Few in this cat have publicly stated they are followers of Muhammad. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From CATREL: "This may include other categories with similar issues, such as Category:Critics of religions and Category:Conspiracy theorists, and other such categories." I would take critics of Islam to be similar to critics of religion. Springee (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she appears to have self-identified as a critic of Islam like others in the cat, as a Congressperson she is notable, and RS have covered her criticisms. I don't see anything requiring authorship of scholarly works. Whether the cat itself should exist is for another arena. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To which I would point to BLPCAT and not defining. I think there is enough concern that this recent change should be reverted. Springee (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a BLPCAT problem. Defining applies to advocates of religions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per BLPCAT, Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its verifiable reliable sources.. Additionally, per WP:COPDEF, Defining – Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes the reason(s) for the person's notability;. Some political mudslinging is hardly defining as the CAT in question would suggest. If the claim is Boebert always is associated with mudsligning then "critics of Islam" isn't really the correct category. Springee (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a poor CAT in this case. Categories are supposed to be defining. This seems more incidental (see wp:BLPCAT and wp:CATREL) Springee (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Church Attendance is Vague

Lauren Boebert has allegedly been to Church once. Beyond that, is beyond me. If she goes weekly, we should add it. If she hasn’t been to church weekly for x amount of time it should be equally represented. Twillisjr (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether she attends a church, a drinking establishment, or a public toilet is part of her private life. Why should we cover this in the article? Even trivia are more interesting than this. Dimadick (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains the word “church” exactly a dozen times with a section dedicated to the promotion of joining church and state. Twillisjr (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM. Are you proposing a change, addition, or redaction? Can you be specific? Be WP:BOLD and make the change! Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions - Veterans

I noticed a section added in political positions for veterans, but it only mentioned how she voted on two bills. This seemed cherry picked, so I removed it. Two of the citation were WP:PRIMARY to her voting record and the other did not mention her. This is not the way to present any politician's stance. Find a secondary source that evaluates her voting patterns or quote her from her website. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you. Huge pet peeve of mine when people just add links to roll call votes without any independent coverage. Marquardtika (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree this is a problem. Even if we have an article that says X bill is good/bad then lists the people who voted for/against I don't think that should be in a BLP unless the source specifically says the BLP subject was say involved in crafting the bill etc. Sadly this is a very common thing on Wikipedia and it seems to be something done when an editor wants to make it clear that some list of politicians were against/for some bill in a way to suggest only bad politicians would have voted that way. I see the same basic content was added to several BLPs. Springee (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ADD to Personal Life section: Boebert obtained her GED in 2020. 149.106.52.29 (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already done in "Early life" section. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Talk header}}
-{{Ds/talk notice|topic=ap}} {{Ds/talk notice|topic=gc}}
+{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap}} {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gc}}
-{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=y|activepol=y|class=B|living=y|listas=Boebert, Lauren|1=
+{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=activepol|class=B|listas=Boebert, Lauren|1=
-{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=y|politician-priority=Low}}
+{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Low}}
-{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|CO=y|CO-importance=Low|WPUS50=yes}}
+{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|CO=yes|CO-importance=Low|WPUS50=yes}}
 {{WikiProject Women's History|importance=Low}}
 {{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}}
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 {{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=Low|gun-politics=yes|gun-politics-importance=low}}
 }}
-{{annual readership|scale=log}}
+{{Annual readership|scale=log}}
 {{Top 25 Report|Jan 10 2021 (25th)}}
 {{DYK talk|22 July|2020|entry= ... that '''[[Lauren Boebert]]''' encourages her servers to [[open carry in the United States|openly carry]] firearms inside her restaurant in [[Rifle, Colorado]]?|nompage=Template:Did you know nominations/Lauren Boebert}}
@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 }}
+== Category:American critics of Islam ==
-== Ethnicity ==
+@[[User:Objective3000|Objective3000]] could you please elaborate what in the article text supports this cat? Additionally, it's unclear to me what this category is even supposed to be, it appears to be a discriminatory list of people who've denounced [[Islamic Terrorism]] at some point. [[User:Kcmastrpc|Kcmastrpc]] ([[User talk:Kcmastrpc|talk]]) 14:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
-I’m noticing, in a picture of her with other far right Republicans, that her skin is darker. Does anyone know her racial/ethnic background? [[User:Skysong263|Skysong263]] ([[User talk:Skysong263|talk]]) 15:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
-:Yea, it's called tanning. Boebert is as white as white can be. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 21:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
+:The entire section: [[Lauren_Boebert#Comments_on_representatives_of_other_religions]] [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 14:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
+::The aforementioned section is political mudslinging. Additionally, [[Criticism of Islam]] would be the closest sister category since [[American Critics of Islam]] doesn't exist; and Boebert's trolling of Omar doesn't necessarily rise to the level of bigotry outlined in the related article. I digress though, we can let other editors chime in. [[User:Kcmastrpc|Kcmastrpc]] ([[User talk:Kcmastrpc|talk]]) 14:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
-::Is she not of Belgian origin? [[Special:Contributions/76.64.181.63|76.64.181.63]] ([[User talk:76.64.181.63|talk]]) 01:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::Since like 95% of Belgium is either Flemish or Walloon, not sure what the point of the question is. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 02:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::As it is, [[:Category:American critics of Islam]] has a lot of political mudslingers. Shouldn't that sort of category be for ''scholarly'' criticism? That might be a BLP/N issue. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 14:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
+::::[[List of critics of Islam]] also exists, and many of the names in the category I'm opposed to aren't in this article either (including Boebert). I tend to agree though, this may be something that should be brought to a noticeboard for broader discussion. [[User:Kcmastrpc|Kcmastrpc]] ([[User talk:Kcmastrpc|talk]]) 15:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
+:::::KC, these cats are all lists of articles. Not articles. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 15:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
+::::::I understand, I presume that categories are usually attached to an article, or at least contextualized in some way; however, [[:Category:American critics of Islam]] lacks either of these characteristics, so I'm stretching to find some sort of relation to provide context of what it's purpose actually is. Emphasis on "stretching". :) [[User:Kcmastrpc|Kcmastrpc]] ([[User talk:Kcmastrpc|talk]]) 15:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::Actually it fits quite well as it stands. As Muboshgu says, the list appears to be a list of mudslingers, not scholarly critics. Alas most critics of Islam probably are mudslingers and the article text suggests she is one. I haven't seen her write any scholarly articles on Islam. Should such a list exist? I'm ambivalent. Never really warmed to the idea of cats. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 15:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
+::::Could be. There are 151 links in that cat. She would seem to fit as a mudslinger. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 15:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
+::::Per CATREL a category of mudslingers should probably be deleted. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 15:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
+:::::I'm no expert on cats. But CATREL doesn't appear to apply. That speaks to subjects who have publicly self-identified with a religious belief. Few in this cat have publicly stated they are followers of Muhammad. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 15:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
+::::::From CATREL: {{tq|"This may include other categories with similar issues, such as Category:Critics of religions and Category:Conspiracy theorists, and other such categories."}} I would take critics of Islam to be similar to critics of religion. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::Well, she appears to have self-identified as a critic of Islam like others in the cat, as a Congressperson she is notable, and RS have covered her criticisms. I don't see anything requiring authorship of scholarly works. Whether the cat itself should exist is for another arena. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 16:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::To which I would point to BLPCAT and not defining.  I think there is enough concern that this recent change should be reverted. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::I don't see a BLPCAT problem. Defining applies to advocates of religions. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 18:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::::Per BLPCAT, {{tq|''Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its verifiable reliable sources.''}}.  Additionally, per WP:COPDEF, {{tq|''Defining – Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes the reason(s) for the person's notability;''}}.  Some political mudslinging is hardly defining as the CAT in question would suggest.  If the claim is Boebert always is associated with mudsligning then "critics of Islam" isn't really the correct category. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 21:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
+::This seems like a poor CAT in this case.  Categories are supposed to be defining.  This seems more incidental (see wp:BLPCAT and wp:CATREL) [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 15:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
+== Church Attendance is Vague ==
-== far-right ==
+Lauren Boebert has allegedly been to Church once. Beyond that, is beyond me. If she goes weekly, we should add it. If she hasn’t been to church weekly for x amount of time it should be equally represented. [[User:Twillisjr|Twillisjr]] ([[User talk:Twillisjr|talk]]) 17:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
-We had [[Talk:Lauren Boebert/Archive 2#RfC about adding "far-right" to the lead|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."
+:Whether she attends a church, a [[drinking establishment]], or a [[public toilet]] is part of her private life. Why should we cover this in the article? Even [[trivia]] are more interesting than this. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 01:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
+:The article contains the word “church” exactly a dozen times with a section dedicated to the promotion of joining church and state. [[User:Twillisjr|Twillisjr]] ([[User talk:Twillisjr|talk]]) 11:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
+::Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTFORUM]]. Are you proposing a change, addition, or redaction? Can you be specific? Be [[WP:BOLD]] and make the change! [[User:Kcmastrpc|Kcmastrpc]] ([[User talk:Kcmastrpc|talk]]) 12:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
+== Political positions - Veterans  ==
-This treatment is inconsistent with the BLPs of  contemporaries such as [[Marjorie Taylor Greene]], [[Paul Gosar]] and [[Wendy Rogers (politician)|Wendy Rogers]], who are each described as "an American far-right politician" in the first sentence of their BLPs.
+I noticed a section added in political positions for veterans, but it only mentioned how she voted on two bills. This seemed cherry picked, so I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Boebert&diff=1239422956&oldid=1238938671 removed it]. Two of the citation were [[WP:PRIMARY]] to her voting record and the other did not mention her. This is not the way to present any politician's stance. Find a secondary source that evaluates her voting patterns or quote her from her [https://boebert.house.gov/issues/veterans-and-defense website]. [[User:Richard-of-Earth|Richard-of-Earth]] ([[User talk:Richard-of-Earth|talk]]) 06:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
-"far-right" is supported by copious sources in each BLP.
-So, which if any of the BLPs should change to provide consistency? [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 05:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
+:Yes, I agree with you. Huge pet peeve of mine when people just add links to roll call votes without any independent coverage. [[User:Marquardtika|Marquardtika]] ([[User talk:Marquardtika|talk]]) 16:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
+::I also agree this is a problem.  Even if we have an article that says X bill is good/bad then lists the people who voted for/against I don't think that should be in a BLP unless the source specifically says the BLP subject was say involved in crafting the bill etc.  Sadly this is a very common thing on Wikipedia and it seems to be something done when an editor wants to make it clear that some list of politicians were against/for some bill in a way to suggest only bad politicians would have voted that way.  I see the same basic content was added to several BLPs. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 18:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
-:No reason to change.  Other stuff exists and the way those articles are written may not be the correct way to write this one.  If you think the others should be changes to match this article their talk page are the correct venues. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 13:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
-:If there’s copious sources available for Boebert like the rest, an RfC could absolutely be started. It’s been two years since the last one so it seems reasonable that we could discuss it again if there’s more coverage describing her as that.<span id="Ser!:1703868417904:TalkFTTCLNLauren_Boebert" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;'''[[User:Ser!|ser!]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Ser!|chat to me]] - [[Special:Contributions/Ser!|see my edits]])</sup> 16:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)</span>
-::It's not clear that an RfC is needed. I think Soibangla is correct that, in Boebert's case, "far-right" is supported by the weight of mainstream RS. Note that I frequently oppose labels in BLPs and especially in the leads, because they can be misleading or ambiguous when misapplied. But in this case, the label is well-supported and informative.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 17:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
-:::{{re|SPECIFICO}} In the absence of a significant news item (for example: the subject going on the record self-identifying with the label) released since early 2022, I am uncomfortable with us simply disregarding the consensus from the January 2022 RFC. It is worth noting that we do have the label in the lead (and we agree that it is well-supported, accurate, and informative), just not currently in the ''lead sentence''. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 18:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
-:It’s unclear to me what has transpired in the past two years to warrant labeling her in the first sentence of the lead. I’m certain there are just as many new sources which attribute this label without much context to those that do not, which just lands us in the same place we were a couple years ago. I also fail to see what relevance those BLPs have here, as there are plenty of controversial US politicians who do not have contentious labels in their opening leads (if not more). [[User:Kcmastrpc|Kcmastrpc]] ([[User talk:Kcmastrpc|talk]]) 18:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
-:I disagree with the premise that it is necessary for these 4 biographies to all bear the same label in the first sentence. Word-for-word "consistency" is not our goal. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 18:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
-== Jayson Boebert's arrest on January 10, 2024 ==
+== Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2024 ==
+{{edit semi-protected|Lauren Boebert|answered=yes}}
-I see some back-and-forth edits about whether or not to include this incident, and we should discuss it. I almost added it over the weekend when we knew police were called and investigating, and I'm glad I didn't at that point because the story we have now with Jayson's arrest is different from what he had told police. But now, we have more information on what happened, including Lauren's role in it. Is it DUE for inclusion in Lauren's biography? [https://www.denverpost.com/2024/01/07/lauren-boebert-ex-husband-jayson-police-silt-colorado-restaurant/ Here's a source] from January 7 with incomplete information and a [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/10/lauren-boebert-ex-husband-punch-assault/72172775007/ cite from today] with more content. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 21:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
+ADD to Personal Life section: Boebert obtained her GED in 2020. [[Special:Contributions/149.106.52.29|149.106.52.29]] ([[User talk:149.106.52.29|talk]]) 10:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
+:[[File:Pictogram voting wait.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Already done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> in "Early life" section.  [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 11:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
-:It's contentious material that involves criminal accusations and probably shouldn't be included until there is consensus. My overall sentiment is that it's [[WP:UNDUE]] since the altercation was primarily between Boebert's family (one of whom most likely falls under [[WP:BLPCRIME]]), with police corroborating that Lauren appears to have not physically assaulted anyone. (per: {{tq|Police on Wednesday said Jayson's Boebert's allegations Lauren Boebert punched him were "unfounded." "Officers observed no marks or injury on Jayson Boebert to corroborate he had actually been assaulted,"}}) [[User:Kcmastrpc|Kcmastrpc]] ([[User talk:Kcmastrpc|talk]]) 21:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
-::It involved him trying to pursue criminal charges against her, so I most certainly think it belongs.[[User:Speakfor23|Speakfor23]] ([[User talk:Speakfor23|talk]]) 21:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, it's a confrontation that directly involves her and her behaviors are very relevant to her career. On the other hand, she didn't punch him as he alleged, and may not have acted inappropriately in this case. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 21:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
-:I think due coverage is no coverage; we're not a tabloid. Claims against the subject herself were recanted and investigation dropped more or less immediately. As a reminder, [[WP:BLP]] ''requires'' use to use greatest care in material regarding living persons. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 22:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
-:What is remarkable is the pattern of such incidents and controversies about public conduct that surround Boebert. We would need sources that discuss that, so as to make clear that WP is not the crime blotter or a conveyor of insignificant spectacle.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 00:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
-:I agree with VQuakr here.  So far this seems to mostly reflect badly on Jayson vs Lauren.  As such it should stay out per BLPONE.  He is only notable because he was married to her. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 00:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
-::The first incident is little more than Jayson being drunk and disorderly in a restaurant, and him intentionally trying to get publicity for his private dispute with Lauren. Nothing to say about Lauren herself. The second incident involves Jayson physically attacking an unidentified male relative while drunk. It seems to be more serious (as Jayson was armed during the fight), but Lauren was not even present. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 15:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::IMO we should probably start being careful with regards to [[WP:BLPCRIME]] here, even if it is a talk page. This dude is only notable for being the ex-spouse of a Congress member. [[User:Kcmastrpc|Kcmastrpc]] ([[User talk:Kcmastrpc|talk]]) 15:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::I concur with not including this. The Denver Post (not a tabloid as asserted in the undo) reporting noted the incident only and was a fair citation, but given that little was known at the time of the originally cited Denver post article, and in the end it was Jayson who was charged, that incident is not relevant to Boebert’s career and in the public interest of voters. [[User:OriEri|OriEri]] ([[User talk:OriEri|talk]]) 00:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
-== foreign policy: the escalation of the war tensions between Russia and Ukraine that started in late 2021. ==
-The phrase "the escalation of the war tensions between Russia and Ukraine that started in late 2021." is pretty long to use as anchor text and is confusingly circumspect. Maybe something like "opposes U.S. intervention in the [[Russian invasion of Ukraine]]." would be better. [[User:Uhoj|Uhoj]] ([[User talk:Uhoj|talk]]) 14:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)