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.
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.
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 sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This 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.
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 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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? Here's a source from January 7 with incomplete information and a cite from today with more content. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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: 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,") Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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:BLPrequires use to use greatest care in material regarding living persons. VQuakr (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. SPECIFICOtalk00:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Springee (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Dimadick (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. OriEri (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While details of the incident discussed above might not be relevant to Boebert, I think the fact that she filed a restraining order against Jayson as a result of the incident and then dropped the restraining order after arriving at "Strict Agreements" should be relevant to Boebert. See proposed text. Up the Walls (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything Boebert does makes news headlines because she’s a controversial figure, however, there are a number of reasons why we shouldn’t include every single inconsequential occurrence especially when they’re materially moot. Obtaining and then dropping a restraining order is borderline mundane and meandering into tabloid journalism — there is nothing encyclopedic about it. Can you tell me why it will matter in 10 years, let alone 10 days? Kcmastrpc (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said the first time, we're not the Boebert Police Blotter, we do not need to document every legal motion filed by the subject. Esp. as this one was filed then withdrawn 30 days later, thus having no consequence to her or his life. Zaathras (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Start a discussion about improving the Lauren Boebert page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Lauren Boebert" page.
.svg){kind=small}
