Talk:Lauren Boebert

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)

The entire section: Lauren_Boebert#Comments_on_representatives_of_other_religions O3000, Ret. (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. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:53, 26 June 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. – Muboshgu (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. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

Per CATREL a category of mudslingers should probably be deleted. 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. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2024

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

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