Jump to content

Talk:Lauren Boebert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CharlesShirley (talk | contribs) at 23:04, 13 January 2021 (→‎Mention of support for storming of the capitol: No reliable source says Boebert supported the storming of the capitol.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPUS50k

Neutrality is disputed

The summary is not neutral. It contains highly inflammatory sentence: "Boebert had expressed support of QAnon, a far-right conspiracy theory,[1][2] though she later stated that she was "not a follower" of QAnon.". None of the links actually provide any evidence. They simply repeat this claim without any support. The sentence needs to be removed or moved to a section "Controversies" or some such. 76.119.114.137 (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to find evidence that she initially made some supportive comments, and subsequently backed away from it: Everything that I’ve heard of Q, I hope that this is real because it only means that America is getting stronger and better, and people are returning to conservative values [1]. I’m not a follower of QAnon,” Boebert said as she ended the interview. “My mom is not a supporter of QAnon, she just talked to me about it one time [2]. Whether or not it belongs in the lede is debatable. I'd lean toward saying that does belong, because along with her strong support of gun rights, the Qanon comments are mentioned frequently in reliable sources. Note that this has already been discussed (a few sections above this) and back in July 2020. There appears to be a solid consensus for the current wording. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article clearly needs to mention the QAnon comments. And the article does mention QAnon in the opening section and in the body of the article. The opening section really should just mention what makes the person notable in the first place and a few select, significant facts, if at all. However, there is very little reason to have the QAon info in the opening section. It is clear that she made some stupid statements early on about QAnon but once it was explained to her what QAnon really is she has been going out of her way not to repeat her statements in support like other QAnon supporters have done, e.g., the new congresswoman from Georgia. The QAnon thing is not what made her notable in the first place, that was her upset of a sitting U.S. Representative during a Republican primary. Also, her election to Congress in November is clearly acceptable for the opening section. But the there is very little justification for the QAnon info being in the opening section. Yes, it should be covered in the body, but not in the opening section. - CharlesShirley (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Her support for the QAnon conspiracy theory is a key part to her notability. It distinguishes her from the typical Republican congressperson and is why she has been subject to so much RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That comment, from Snooganssnoogans, is simply not true. She became notable because she defeated a sitting U.S. Representative in a primary. That is how she got an article. She is not notable because she made two moronic statements. Also, Snooganssnoogans has no evidence for the above comment, that's way there was no actual evidence given to back up the untrue comment. - CharlesShirley (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Her support for QAnon in pretty much every single news report about her, often in headlines. It was in the coverage during her primary challenge, after she won the primary, after she won the general election, and ever since.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] This Reuters story from last week is a typical example as it covers Boebert on an unrelated issue but still prominently links her to QAnon as an explainer to readers of who she is[11]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Snooganssnoogans that "her support for the QAnon conspiracy theory is a key part to her notability". The first sentence should also describe her as a far-right conspiracy theorist, which is what she is and what she is primarily regarded as by RS. --Tataral (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral College rejection of votes from Arizona

Boebert objected to the electoral votes of the state of Arizona during the counting of votes to the Electoral College. She announced she would do this several days before. Which is more important, the announcement or the deed? I say the deed. The announcement is ancillary. To compromise, we can keep the announcement and the deed, but the deed definitely belongs. An encyclopedia is supposed to be statement of facts -- that is, events that occurred -- not a record of things people said they would do. Respectfully, Chisme (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Chisme for being respectful. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chisme, what you note here is what irritates me about so many articles, especially in K-pop: "it was announced that". We need the facts, not the announcements, which are usually just little press pieces. In this case, the announcement would be useful to include of the person subsequently changed their mind, as some Senators did, but that's not what we have here. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for dropping out

The article states that she dropped out of high school to start a family. This is speculative about the reason, suggesting that it was a well thought out plan. It seems just as likely, indeed more likely, that she became pregnant while still at school which more or less forced her to drop out.

Suggestion: reword as:

"... became pregnant and dropped out of high school", which adheres to the facts and avoids speculation about intent / planning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.140.196 (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I altered this, as the Durango Herald article cited has her stating she dropped out to take care of her child, but would have been class of 2004. I also added that she later got her GED as that article reports. The son appears on a listing for Rifle High School Class of 2019 [12], he it seems to match up pretty well. I wouldn't say "she became pregnant and dropped out of high school" because it seems she had the child before she dropped out.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Socialism", again

CharlesShirley reverted my removal of the vacuous "she opposes socialism". They reverted Philip Cross's removal of that same line a few days ago, incorrectly claiming "it has been discussed many times"--it was discussed once, Talk:Lauren_Boebert/Archive_1#Socialism_political_issue. The only other editor I see who supported that line was Muboshgu--but Muboshgu, doesn't just about every single US politician oppose socialism? EEng also opposed inclusion, but their cogent (IMO) argument was shouted down by CharlesShirley as "bull hockey" (and then insulted EEng's intelligence--they have a long track record of personalizing disputes). Neutrality didn't speak out on the socialism bit, but I'm interested in their opinion; same with KidAd, who trimmed the original longer statement.

"I oppose socialism" is, as EEng argued, meaningless if there is no indication of what, according to the speaker, "socialism" means or what specific kinds of policies would count. One is reminded of the constant blurring between "socialism" and "democratic socialism" one finds among conservative politicians. I think it's time to reassess this "position": it's not a "position", it's just a bit of rhetoric. In addition, I'm a bit tired of the obvious policing of this article by CharlesShirley, who is responsible for half the edits and half the content of this article. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree for essentially the same reasons. This is a random comment at a random campaign event; it's not particularly noteworthy; and an good encyclopedia probably wouldn't seek to memorialize this particular snippet of bombast. It's also not really a "political position"; the source cited indicates that Boebert was criticizing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, not opining on grand economic theory. If we want a short summary of Boebert's rhetorical style and positioning, I would not object to something cited to something like this Sept. 2020 article in the NYT, which mentions that during her 2020 campaign, Boebert "bill[ed] herself as the answer to creeping socialism and promise[ed] to shake up Washington." That would be acceptable in the campaign section (not "political positions"). Neutralitytalk 18:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with the wise Drmies. We might combine this laundry list of position headings; this would better convey that she's a pretty strict 2020-style GOP populist conservative.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I was saying that a bland comment akin to "I oppose socialism" doesn't mean much, but if we had something more specific, it's a valid political view to include. Based only on that AOC quote, I support the removal. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the removal of "Boebert opposes socialism" or any other similarly vacuous statements. It is as empty and needless as writing "Boebert supports freedom" or "Boebert supports liberty". KidAd talk 19:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, of course. It's like if the article said, in WP's voice, Boebert opposes meanness or something. It's meaningless. If we want to report the words that came out of her mouth, so that readers can make what they will of it, we could write Boebert says she is "opposed to meanness" but to say she's opposed to socialism, outside of quote marks, as if that means anything, makes us look foolish. EEng 19:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The entire "Political positions" section is skimpy as can be. Besides declaring her positions on these topics, the article should say why she takes her positions. In other words, these positions need more explanation. The way it stands now, "Political positions" shouldn't be a topic with subtopics. It should be a topic heading followed by a bulleted list with one bullet for each of her positions. To borrow from Gertrude Stein, there's no there there. Chisme (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of her giving the murderous mob Nancy Pelosi's location?

That's a pretty big deal.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/qanon-lauren-boebert-nancy-pelosi-capitol-riot-b1785663.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.23.104 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally I wasn't going to wrangle with this one but it is worth discussion. She tweeted at 2:17PM ET "We were locked in the House Chambers." and at 2:18pm "The Speaker has been removed from the chambers." [13]. That's the entirety of the evidence. Its not a slam dunk that she was trying to inform the mob as to Pelosi's location, since she doesn't say where she went. She was speaking on the house floor a bit before these tweets, and she thanked someone at 2:10 who tweeted comparing her speech to one from Dwight on the Office. Dwight starts that video clip by saying "blood alone moves the wheels of history." [14] She next tweeted at 4:40pm about how she was safe and denouncing the violence.[15] Now, under Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol we see that this is pretty real-time information that she tweeted at 2:17-2:18pm. The Capitol was breached at 1:59pm. Rioters reached within feet of the Senate entrance at 2:13pm. Pelosi was removed from the House chambers at 2:14pm. What I find intriguing is that her tweets have utterly no context to them, almost like they were intended to be a DM. But that's merely my opinion.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of context Milowent points out is important. We don't really know why she tweeted "The Speaker has been removed from the chambers." We may never know. All we know is that (1) she tweeted it, and (2) it has resulted in calls for her to resign. We haven't gotten any sort of clarifying statement from her, that I am aware of. This may be something really important, but for now it seems WP:TOOSOON to know. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably the one thing for which she is best-known, internationally at least and perhaps everywhere in the US outside of Colorado's 3rd congressional district. It should definitely be included. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boebert's actions on January 6 require a section in this article?

Do Boebert's actions immediately prior to, during, and after the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol require their own section in this article? As of today, her actions on January 6 are described in two paragraphs under the bland heading "Tenure." Boebert's actions on January 6, 2021 made her a nationally known figure. On account of her "1776 moment" tweet, her tweet regarding Speaker Nancy Pelosi's location at the outbreak of the riot, and her condemnation by Democratic politicians, Boebert's name has become nationally known. Her name was in national news broadcasts last night; her name also appeared in national publications such as Newsweek and the Independent. Because her actions on January 6 are what make her known to most people, I suggest her actions on January 6 should be described under a heading in this article. Chisme (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full page protection

I've fully protected the page: even longterm editors are making problematic edits. I am not endorsing any content currently on the page or not on the page. Y'all know how to make proposed edits and what consensus means. tedder (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But you apparently don't know what the WP:Protection policy means. 15 days of full (!) protection is absurd, and even more so when one considers that you've apparently taken no steps at all to address any problems in less draconian ways. I suggest you reverse yourself to save the embarrassment of someone else doing it for you. Paging Drmies. EEng 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem has been addressed by others, there's a lot of WP:REVDEL going on. If admins want to shorten it, that's fine. It's common for admins to ask with WP:WHEEL in mind. But your inflammatory tone doesn't really make me think full protection was a mistake. tedder (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to have been a single incident of someone adding something inappropriate, after which a respected admin and former arb who is active on the article and its talk page made a single revdel (not "a lot of REVDEL going on") and warned that editor, and apparently thought that was sufficient. Then you, who have never participated in the article in any way and apparently have no idea what's going on, came lumbering in with this ham-handed pronouncement completely out of keeping with policy. Full protection, of any duration, is a last resort. Someone needs to go back to admin school. EEng 04:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:EEng, the material was revdeleted on 15 December already by Ohnoitsjamie, and again by me on 13 January, and I separately revdeleted an edit summary. So that's 16 revdeletions in all (you also have to revdeleted subsequent edits, until the information is removed). Plus three more on the talk page. In other words, there is continued reason for concern. I don't want to call it a smear campaign, but they're serious BLP violations by overenthusiastic editors, at least one of whom should have known better. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't know about December, and a single block of contiguous revdelled edits is really only a single incident. The point remains: full protection was absurd. EEng 17:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Im shocked to find this page full page protected with such little justification. It seems very heavy handed, especially when compared to the protection level of similarly controversial biographies of living persons. Im not experienced enough of an editor to know what, if any, appeal process there might be here, but my next move is to research it. I would urge @Tedder: to reserve in the mean time. It should also be known that I know of EEng, I find the tone inflammatory here in addition to my own experience elsewhere, but here, EEng is right. A little reading between the lines, and assume good faith is needed here. Rklahn (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wrong move. I've edited a lot of highly active controversial pages in my time and I don't understand why full protection is warranted here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logging on and seeing consensus here, I'll remove it (actually, take it back to basic semi-pro). tedder (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar, please!

Please change "had went off" to "had gone off" in the section on the metal detector.Bruxism (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of support for storming of the capitol

I believe that her support for the storming of the capitol should be mentioned in the lead. pbp 15:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment from PBP89 is flat out wrong. She did not say she supported storming the capitol. There is no reliable source that states that either. Since there is no reliable source that says that there is no way it should be mentioned in the lead. - CharlesShirley (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, what do you think "Today is 1776" meant? What about the reporting that she tweeted out Nancy Pelosi's secure location? Each can be backed up by multiple reliable sources. You're POV-pushing, dude. pbp 16:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boebert is having quite a first week in office. She had promoted Jan. 6 as a day when the election could be overturned, told her supporters that Trump should not pack his bags just yet and repeatedly compared it to 1776, the year of America’s revolution. As the rioters closed in, she tweeted updates, leading to specious allegations she was aiding the riots. I believe that's as far as RS are going as of now, and will refrain from speculating on what may come next because of BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Ha. We added to her article that she refused to have her purse checked by Capitol Police, which is not encyclopedic in any manner whatsoever. We added that her Twitter account was suspended for one week, which isn't really encyclopedic either. We added that Democratic politicians and Democratic residents of Durango and Pueblo want her to resign. Surprise, surprise, surprise!!! Is that really encyclopedic? No. What's next? I'm not POV-pushing. What POV am I pushing? That we should have some kind of logic to the additions. How is that POV-pushing. I'm not the editor that has put in the article that her bag was checked (Oh my!). If I am POV-pushing it is because I made the comment that she did not storm the capitol (which she didn't) and I said she did not "support storming the capitol". If I am wrong, which I am not, where is the reliable sources that say, "Boebert supported storming the capitol"? Where? PBP89 please provide that reliable source. The Denver Post article, provided by Muboshgu, does NOT, in any way, say as PBP89 claims, "her support for the storming of the capitol". It does not say that, it does not support PBP89's claim. The evidence, so far, is not there. It just isn't. So call me a POV-pushing editor and I will point out that your claim that I am POV-pushing is BS, which it is. You want to put that in the article? Fine, provide a reliable source that says that. The DP article doesn't cut it. - CharlesShirley (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lauren_Boebert&oldid=1000170957"