Talk:Lauren Boebert/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Claims about husband

@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)

I have added a very solid source. This not an "accusation" of a crime, but documentation of a history of actual confessed crime. There is no doubt that she has lied about the incident, so this goes toward establishing what type of person she is. She too has a criminal history. That's all very valid content here. If she hadn't gone public with the matter and lied about it, there could be made a case for deleting this mention, but that's not the case. It's the coverup that's often worse than the crime (although in this case, the crime is definitely worse). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is not about Boebert's husband. It is off topic. Also, Boebert's husband is not notable. See Wikipedia:NPF. And if he was notable (he isn't) he cannot be named as notable because of one event. See Wikipedia:BLP1E. It is one event in the life of a non-notable person, who is not the topic of the article. Also, I quote directly from Wikipedia's article on Biographies of Living Persons: "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." See Wikipedia:BLPCRIME. There is no exception just because the person's spouse is an unpopular politician. This section does not belong in this article for many, many reasons under Wikipedia's MOS. -- LiwenAristodemos (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not the case. A notable subject's spouse is a part of their biography, and BLP1E does not apply. Boebert wrote about the public exposure in her autobiography. He pleaded guilty, so BLPCRIME doesn't apply either. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. "unless a conviction has been secured." He was convicted and has, because of her and his frequent appearances with her, become a public person, just not notable enough for his own article....yet. Most RS document him as her husband and his criminal history, including domestic violence against her. Both of them have criminal histories, and one could consider writing articles from that angle. LiwenAristodemos, do you really want us to go in that direction? I doubt it, so just accept this short mention. The Streisand effect works at Wikipedia's talk pages, and journalists monitor them for stuff. The more you complain, the greater likelihood it will be noticed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Some mention of this aspect of the subject's family life is due. It would be easy to overcover, it though, so caution is warranted. @Valjean: toward establishing what type of person she is Careful 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)

I don't recall there ever being more than a minimal discussion of Husband's penis and wife-beating in the article. But there have been lots of efforts to entirely cleanse the article of both, and that does not comport with RS presentations of famille Bobert. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree the present level of coverage is both due and minimal. Yes, attempts to expurgate the coverage altogether are unsurprising and inappropriate. VQuakr (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

"She too has a criminal history." I checked sources for her arrest record a couple of years ago. If I remember correctly, her criminal history consists only of a heated fight with one of her neighbors, an arrest for encouraging concert-attendees to flee police custody, and an arrest for reckless driving. She is not exactly a career criminal. Dimadick (talk) 18:04, 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)

Nobody said Jayson Boebert is notable. Valjean did not "threaten" to write an article on their legal issues. Al Gore is not relevant to Lauren Boebert, and since I don't edit that page, I can't speak to its contents. Boebert's husband is not the topic of this article, but it's a relevant part of it. I do agree we should make sure to not over-cover the event, without WP:SYNTH about his indecent exposure establishing what type of person she is. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I can try to tackle this comparison. The article states: "In her 2022 memoir, Boebert stated that her husband never exposed himself, despite pleading guilty and serving jail time for the incident. She was present when it happened." I don't believe Al Gore wrote about his son's arrest nor was he present when his son was arrested. If he was, then that would likely be noteworthy. FWIW: I, too, agree that the present level of coverage is appropriate. -Location (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

But Al Gore did write about his son, Al Gore III and yes he did cover his son's troubles. How we treated those legal issues is most definitely relevant to this article. Why? Because we applied a simple principle of Wikipedia that applies to each and every article here: Is the information about the topic of the article. BTW, Valjean claims the indecency charge is "notable" information, I would just point out that there is no such thing as "notable information" in Wikipedia. There are notable people, but not "notable information", that is just a false principle of Wikipedia. Boebert's husband is not a notable person and therefore his personal legal issues are off-topic. It is as simple as that. If this indecency charge was against Boebert herself then it would be appropriate for the article, since the article is about her. But the indecency charge is not against her and therefore it is outside the topic of the article.LiwenAristodemos (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

As has been explained, that's why we do not have a separate article page about Husband Boebert's indiscretions. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like you're making a good case for including info on Al Gore III at Al Gore. The place to discuss that is Talk:Al Gore. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Re: "Is the information about the topic of the article?" Boebert's husband pled guilty to public indecency and lewd exposure and Boebert said he didn't do it. Not only that, we have secondary sources discussing how Boebert's "version of events... diverges from the timeline and accounts that were provided to police and omits relevant details – including that she was there and spoke to authorities after the 2004 incident."[2] Boebert made this story about her. Was Gore present when his son was arrested, did he write that he didn't do what he was charged with, and did he write up an account leaving out key details, etc.? Sorry. There is no good comparison, but you can post in Talk:Al Gore if you so desire. -Location (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Jayson Boebert is not notable independent of the esteemed Representative of Colorado's 3rd congressional district, that is why he does not get a separate article, and what reliable sources make note of him is covered here. Zaathras (talk) 20:54, 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)

It's not in a section about lying. Instead it's in a section about her personal life. As her husband isn't the article subject this looks like a BLP issue to me. Springee (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Two red herrings in one comment. Pretty good! There is no rule on either point that applies here, but we could start a section about her lies if that would help. It's certainly a relevant and notable topic. As I mentioned above, the real topic is her lying, and she made it about her husband. Smart move. I bet he loved that. Lying about proven facts always makes them more visible. As far as BLP goes, it is not unsourced negative information. The sourcing is good enough as this isn't some rumor or false claim, especially since she is the primary source of the lie. It's all backed by court records. Pretty solid facts are behind this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

No BLP problem with widely reported public record. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Her memoir, which talked to the formation of her political views, came out a few months before her narrow, reelection victory. That is, it was part of her election. The material here appears to originate from false statements in the memoir about this episode. That is, this is about her, not her husband. Hard to see how a small mention is not DUE. It’s not like we are creating a new article about this, like the 125,820 byte article plus another 104,922 byte article about the president’s son (and the additional article about his ex-wife that is mostly about him.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Why focus on this thing vs something else in the book? More critically, her husband is not a public figure so including accusations of a crime is a BLP issue with respect to him. Springee (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you propose other noteworthy content from the book that we should consider for inclusion? I'm puzzled however. Accusations of a crime is not an issue when an individual has been convicted of a crime and it is widely reported public record. That's what happens with criminals and others who have publicly recorded information of various kinds -- tax liens, foreclusures, details of their estates, etc. SPECIFICO talk 13:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't read the book so I wouldn't know. However, it does come across as we are including this specifically to put negative content about her family (not her) in the article. That is a BLP issue, especially since her husband is not a public figure. Springee (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

We didn't go looking for dirt or use a source digging up dirt. She is the one who brought this up in a book she released just before her reelection. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

...and reliable secondary sources thought what she had to say about the incident was worthy of being written about. -Location (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Springee, I think in this case, the secondary emphasis by his wifeperson, itself covered in tertiary sources, satisfies NPOV/WEIGHT. Wife Boebert is an independent RS in terms of WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 15:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this probably needs to go to BLPN. Most of the sources that brought this up are lower quality and look at the timing. It was done before an election where many sources were trying to find things to discredit (rightly or wrongly) Boebert. This is supposed to be an impartial BLP. This doesn't advance that purpose. Springee (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Springee, don't make the common error of claiming the article should be "neutral". It should neutrally reflect the sources. It's not helpful to second guess reliable sources or impugn their motives. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The article should be IMPARTIAL. It's not at all clear this content is DUE. I certainly could be seen as here to discredit Boebert vs actually tell us anything about her personal life. Assuming husband and wife are the same age, it appears this incident occurred when they were about 18. Anyway, I've asked the BLPN if BLPCRIME applies here. Springee (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

look at the timing. It was done before an election The 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)

That presumes she decided to mention it out of the blue vs as a response to dirt digging by media. Here is a 2021 Salon article that brought it up [3]. So it appears she was trying to tell her side of the story since the dirt was out. Springee (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Springee, most folks will feel that spousal abuse does have something to do with said spouse's life. Best not to get into that. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Springee, it's not for us to sort out why information is published, by an abused spouse via an RS publisher, or by a journalist, or an academic. Or can you share some link to content in our Verification or NPOV policies that deprecates an RS publication for such cause? SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 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)

We should be here to present facts neutrally, but I agree with some of the arguments presented that this appears UNDUE. Let's consider for a moment that the human brain doesn't leave adolescence until around age 25 then entire situation, unfortunately, makes a little bit more sense. Now, I don't advocate anyone expose themselves in general, doubly so in front of a teenager. However, if there are RS that better summarizes Boebert's claim her husband was unfairly prosecuted, innocent, or whatever (assuming those exist) -- should we not include them to help BALANCE the claims being sourced from the period during a highly contested election? Kcmastrpc (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with brains. Please review NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 11:25, 22 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)

I've removed two unusable claims ("falsely claimed" was unsourced, and "present when it happened" was attributed by sources to NYPost), and added content about the domestic violence incident and conviction, along with the fact that it happened the same year she had her first child. DFlhb (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Issues about revised paragraph about husband

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. 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.

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.

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:

1. You removed their ages, which had been requested on this talk page. His maturity and her immaturity are important context.
2. "two underage girls" was removed. Some sources mistakenly say "two women" or just "girls", but others say they were underage, making it a much more serious matter.
3. "falsely" was removed. When something is false, we say so in wikivoice.
4. that Lauren "was present" was removed

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 first two "problematic deletions" were collateral damage. My goal was to swap the paragraph order (denial comes last) while keeping those details, but after trying several phrasings, I had to trim them to reach a version that didn't sound disjointed. I'm far from the best copyeditor, and this would have likely been easier for most editors here, so anyone is welcome to bring those details back. They're not at issue here.

The last two "problematic" removals were entirely intentional, and I presented my arguments in the discussion above, rather than in the edit summary. You say that 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)

The reason sources even discussed that history about her husband was because she lied about it in her book. By disputing the facts, she drew attention to that part of her book. That made her lie worthy of discussion. That was my point. She clearly disputes proven facts. That is known as a lie or falsehood. We don't have to be naive and believe her cover story.

Are you okay with restoring their ages and "two underage girls"? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

But no source actually says she lied, so neither can we. The sources juxtapose her claims ("he's innocent") with the facts (he pled guilty and went to jail), and my version does the same juxtaposition, since we can't go beyond the sources.

It may be self-evident to you that those two things contradict each other, but that's not in the source, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Someone can plead guilty, and be innocent, so there is no contradiction (check out the fantastic James Duane's 2016 book, I believe you'll like it). Notice I'm not saying he's actually innocent; but I can only reply to WP:OR with a rhetorical argument.

I'm fine with restoring the ages; slightly oppose "underage girls", since they were apparently 17 and "underage" is a bit of an explosive term. How about "teens"? DFlhb (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

DFlhb, I may have missed it, but I don't think their ages are given. There were three girls in all who were offered a view of his tattooed dick. It was the bartender who was 17. After offering the bartender a view of his dick, the two underage girls were approached by Jayson, who bragged that he had a tattoo on his penis, and without their permission, he showed it to them. They immediately complained to the owner, who tried to get Jayson and Lauren to leave, but they refused. Then the police were called. So "underage" is the best we can do. (This all reminds me of a joke about a cadaver in medical school. The medical students found a tattoo on the penis which quoted the gospel hymn "Love lifted me.") -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems you're right; we only know the bartender was 17. I think that leaves the COATRACK and dueness arguments, and on those, I lean exclude for now, since I still think the arguments for inclusion were, as I said elsewhere, "sloppy". Respectfully.

I'll point to my last comment at BLPN, especially the last part. We're relying on less established outlets: a local outlet (Denver Post), The Daily Beast which we can't use for controversial statements in BLPs, and Current Affairs which is opinionated. There's also The Independent and Business Insider, which are certainly reliable, but which I maintain have lower thresholds for newsworthiness than titans like NYT, AP, or WaPo, or even respectable sources like NBC. (Note that on WP:RSP, some caution is 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)

I don't see anything at BLPN that tells us it should be removed from this page. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a separate argument, which I addressed in my comments at WP:AE about another fringe rightwinger's BLP; I could also point to this Nableezy comment at BLPN, or the Blueboar comment I linked at AE, which both reflect my understanding of policy. DFlhb (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

BTW, they were married in 2007. The source is in the infobox. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the original version, including the term "underage girls" is the way to go, based on Valjean's reasoning above. Exposure - while serious in itself - to underage girls is a more serious affair than to adults, and is also the title of at leat one of the references used: "Lauren Boebert Was Present When Her Husband Exposed Himself To Underage Girls: Report" Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:14, 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)

I’m not suggesting even for a second that we include this source, but it’s interesting that Lauren appears to completely refute this claim in her book.

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.

Now, given we have conflicting information, with information directly from the subject of thie BLP what do we do? Since we aren’t going to source this in the main article, if it comes down to a RFC, I’d be against including anything regarding this topic given the controversy and that it serves almost no encyclopedic value. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

What is unusual or interesting about a wife supporting her husband (more so with a politician) in an embarrassing situation (outside of a divorce)? 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. Fact is, this will be a very brief article for a sitting congressperson if we don't include anything embarrassing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

she really doesn't have much history or current actions that aren't embarrassing....How embarassing! But actually we are coding this with brevity and euphemism that goes about as far as we can without whitewashing it. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

A properly written NPOV article for her, due weight and all, would mean more than half of the article would be negative stuff, so YES, we are indeed whitewashing and violating several policies by holding back. We are not following RS closely enough.

Some people are just so basically controversial, negative, and so surrounded by a storm of misdeeds and other crap, that their articles are supposed to look like a tarpit from hell. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree and disagree. The basic way to follow NPOV is to stick to the same raw ratio of positive/negative facts as the sources, and we do that well, since it's hard to find much positive in our article. But a more sophisticated way to follow NPOV is to look for our WP:BESTSOURCES, those that provide the most analytical, intellectual coverage, and ruthlessly hew to those sources to set the implicit "overarching narrative" for our article. That leads to an article that feels less "biased", because those sources are usually more measured, incisive, and nuanced. But in a deeper way, it's far more damning, because it gets to these people's essence, rather than listing a disjointed litany of embarrassing-but-relatively-minor incidents. Exactly what Masem criticises in this WP:AE comment about a similar BLP.

In Boebert's case, that "overarching narrative" is her dangerous disrespect for democratic norms, her "the spectacle is the point" approach to politics (the polar opposite of the wonkiness embodied by the best politicians), her role within an "increasingly dangerous faction" of the Republican party (supported by this excellent in-depth NYT piece), and her reliance on media-savviness and stunts (source). It also means contextualising her as part of a well-funded insurgent right-wing movement (source), as a politician that appeals to a more radical electoral base than the mainstream Republican party (source), and, most saliently, contextualising her as just another symptom of America's decaying institutions (scholarly source). Those definitional aspects are currently either not mentioned, or get lost in the sea of less pivotal "incidents". That goes against NPOV. Incidents are easy for her supporters to dismiss as gaffes. Remember how the media were forced to do some soul-searching after they realized that they were falling for all of Trump's manufactured controversies, rather than focusing on the overarching picture of institutional damage and damage to civil society? That's what made him "Telfon Don". We're making the same mistake here. DFlhb (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

A very nice summary of how this article should look. Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm unlikely to; too time-consuming and I just don't care about Boebert. I also found dozens of very usable papers on Google Scholar. Some are passing mentions, but they uncritically cite news articles or even op-eds about her, granting them added weight. I won't post them here since it would distract from my comment above, which covers all the essentials. DFlhb (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Kcmastrpc, she doesn't come close to "refuting" it. That would imply she has actual facts that prove the witnesses were lying. Instead, she just denies what the witnesses said. She only claims to be a witness to what he did with the 17-year-old bartender, not what happened with the other two girls, so how can she deny what they said? The witnesses told the police what happened, and it's revolting. He was obviously drunk. He pleaded guilty, was convicted, and did his time. Lauren is just trying to do damage control. Let's not be naive here. RS describe her denials as contrary to the facts. She's not being honest. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Valjean on this one. Valjean makes solid, cogent arguments here, based in policy, and the proposed text is well-sourced, relevant, and neutral. I would support whatever additions Valjean makes going forward (assuming they're the same or similar to what's proposed in this discussion). Wes sideman (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Based on the points made by Valjean, SPECIFICO, Chaheel Riens, and myself, I believe consensus is to include this well-sourced material. The arguments against including basically come down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it's negative. We don't omit negative sourced information just because it's negative. Wes sideman (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Please see the BLPN discussion where it is clear no consensus exists. Restoring the disputed content once was BOLD. The second time was edit warring. Springee (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  No consensus. On the contrary, WP:TDLI applies here just as much as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think the most powerful argument comes from O3000, Ret.: 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 whitewash lessen the incident by leaving out details such as ages of those involved miss the entire point of the inclusion, which is to bring attention to the fact that Boebert seems to have no problem with it to the extent where she's prepared to be deceptive or vague over the incident details - something not dissimilar as to what's happening here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If you think the point of including material in a BLP on Wikipedia is to teach the subject a lesson you have seriously misunderstood the purpose of this place. nableezy - 03:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

nableezy, is that directed at me? I fail to see where I suggest teaching anybody a lesson. I thought it emphatically clear that I agree with O3000's comment of 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)

the entire point of the inclusion, which is to bring attention to the fact that Boebert seems to have no problem with it to the extent where she's prepared to be deceptive or vague over the incident details. That is not the point of inclusion for anything at all on Wikipedia. nableezy - 15:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough - poor choice of words, but the intent of the statement is that NPOV means we should no qualms about issues that show her in a poor light if those issues are reliably sourced and reported themselves - or as in this case, proven in a court of law. Just as we highlight good things people do we don't do so to put them on a pedestal, we do it because others have deemed their actions worthy of comment - and that's the point of inclusion, whether good of bad. In this case, bad. Ok, point accepted - the point of inclusion is not to point out she's a bad person, it's to point out that others think she's a bad (or good) person. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

proven in a court of law is 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)

I already said I didn't oppose the inclusion of those details. DFlhb (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That's only true in a civil trial. A plea deal must go to a court and be approved by a judge. You can't be sentenced to prison by a DA -- only by a judge. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I meant "never went to trial", hence not proven in a court of law. DFlhb (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Semantics. Once the judge accepts the change of plea, he/she applies the sentence. After that, presumption of innocence no longer applies. You are presumed guilty under the law. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

We're relitigating this comment without engaging in its substance, which is pointless. I'll withdraw here and respectfully agree to disagree. DFlhb (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• KC, TDLI is an essay about WP:Deletion policy. This is not a deletion discussion. Please frame your view in terms off the question at hand, if you wish. SPECIFICO talk 13:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't bring up IDLI, the editor who reinstated the content did. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  You stated above "TDLI applies here". You might consider striking that if you no longer believe that. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thus predictably kicking off another edit war, when the responsible thing to do in these cases is to advance new policy-based arguments and rebut existing ones, and to request formal closure that takes into account this thread, the one above, and the one at BLPN. CTOPs would be a lot cooler if people did that. DFlhb (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with Valjean also, and concur with Wes sideman's comments on the matter. The argument in favour of inclusion of this paragraph is properly policy based and relevant. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:07, 25 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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2023

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)

 Not done - The exact wording is "She has named eliminating critical race theory from schools as one of her top legislative priorities, even though it is not taught in schools.", which is grammatically correct. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

And further, per the source cited at the end of that sentence, 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

Lauren Boebert filed for divorce from Jayson Boebert in April 2023. Arentuthatgirl (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done – Needs a source. Wracking ^💬 22:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

• Specific text to be added or removed:

Change

citing "irreconcilable differences."

to

citing "irreconcilable differences".

• Reason for the change: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Punctuation inside or outside
• References supporting change: n/a

William Avery (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Deor (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

How should we present Boebert's education?

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)

I have full protected due to the edit warring and BLP objections. If this is settled before the two days are up I'll lift the protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, invoking the advice about community norms exception 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)

History.

• 11 August 2022. Removed by Valarianb
• 11 August 2022. Reverted by X4n6, a whopping 7 minutes later. You really got a bee in your bonnet about this, eh?
• [unknown]. At some point between last Aug and a few days ago, someone screwed up the entry by adding a period. I really don't care enough to find who or when.
• 01:34, 17 May 2023. I removed a broken entry, it was not displaying because of the extraneous period.
• 20 May 2023. That brings us to today, where you added it with an IMO dishonest edit summary of "ce". I revert, you revert, Springee reverts, and here we are. Zaathras (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

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. So, omit per WP:BLP. Mention in the article body, as we currently do, is fine. @X4n6: edit warring contested content back into a BLP is a bad look. VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• More important education question - Before we discuss undue use of the infobox that might disparage her, what Verification do we have that she actually got a GED? The only thing I see is her own statements that she had a "4 course review" and got a GED. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Comment - what is exactly wrong with an editor really having a bee in their bonnet over this? Seems to me that most involved here - including Zaathras - has a bee in their bonnet about it. Infobox guidelines don't say anything about restricting what content should be entered - and what should not - so there's no policy to guide here, despite what is implied in other comments hereabouts. There seems to also be an undercurrent of bad faith that the insertion is purely to disparage the subject. Yes, it may show her in a poor light but so does much of the article, however - as we all know - NPOV means reporting all sides of the story, not what we choose in order to favour or not the subject. To be fair though - SPECIFICO also makes a valid point: In order to adhere to NPOV in the first place we need reliable sources, and has that been established for her GED?

  In short - I'm in favour of inclusion, and see no policy for removal, apart from WP:RELIABLE, as it's currently an unsourced claim. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  First, I wasn't the one edit-warring against three editors, so if you're going to speak up, kindly direct your attention at the editor who did and you'll find your bees. Second, being a HS dropout and a G.E.D.-holder is generally held in a negative light in American culture. Third, as for the intent of the education field the line at Template:Infobox person is 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)

  True, but you have picked up the baton somewhat. Many things are generally held in a negative light in American culture - so what? NPOV. As for your final point - MOS:INFOBOX uses the term "e.g." which is inclusive, not exclusive. Implication is not the same as explicit instruction. You're welcome to your opinion, just as others are surely welcome to theirs. I'm still not seeing any policy (sourcing notwithstanding - SNOPES) to exclude the information. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  In the absence of a specific policy, we go by consensus. Can you find another article that lists a person's education in the manner that X4n6 insists upon? Zaathras (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• The following sentence should be removed from the early life/education setting until/unless independent RS verification can be established.@ScottishFinnishRadish:

  She earned a GED certificate in 2020, a month before her first election primary.

  SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, it's currently sourced to WP:SNOPES, which labels her having her GED as true, as well as another secondary source that covers her claim. Is Snopes not reliable for this fact check, and is the claim unduly self-serving or an exceptional to 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)

  My reading of both sources is that they are just relying on her unsubstantiated claim. We could say she makes this claim, no problem, but that gets back to the problem of making her look silly. I think we should just leave it out. I'm not sure it obviously passes ABOUTSELF, given her flamboyant rhetorical style and the context of the campaign in which the claim originated. SPECIFICO talk 21:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  [4]

  Claim: U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert received her GED diploma a few months before winning election to the House of Representatives. Rating: True

  This rating indicates that the primary elements of a claim are demonstrably true.

  So there would definitely need to be a consensus to edit through full protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

My primary reason for reverting was this appears to be something that wasn't previously discussed and I didn't see evidence that prior consensus had said include. I don't see this as during in the spirit of the info box. Take Dave Thomas's bio [5]. Thomas was noted for both being a big advocate of education and not finishing high school. His box does not mention his lack of diploma. I agree with those who say this isn't the intent of the box and it has potential BLP impactions. Springee (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m not entirely sure anyone is attempting to whitewash. WP:INFOBOX is reserved for the most pertinent details about a subject for quick reference. The spirit of the education field is routinely used for higher education degrees and awards. WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTDIARY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE seems to apply here especially with how inconsequential high-school level diplomas actually are. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

If you have an independent secondary RS, please give us a link so we can review the source. Her own narrative is not an independent RS for what at the time may have been self-serving statements. The article can say that she told reporters/told tweeter/told People Mag that she had a GED or diploma etc. but we can't state it as fact in wikivoice. SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I gave multiple RS above; and also included BLPSTYLE policy saying: "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." X4n6 (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, but what would be needed is, e.g. a newspaper or other media source that verified the recording of the degree in an official filing, or similar objective verification. But as I said, I think mentioning GED or High School grad in general is likely to just make her look silly. And it's really not relevant to her career or public profile. Without explanation of relevance, GED sounds to most readers like the coupons they used to have on the inside cover of comic books, etc. It's really not noteworthy or suitable for emphasis without so much explanation that it would be UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the response I've already given you? BLPSTYLE says "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." Unlike a high school/college graduation, GED doesn't publish who passes. So, as I suspect you already know, what you're asking for doesn't exist. But per WP policy, which I just quoted, it doesn't need to. And you think the info makes her look silly? That's your view. It's certainly not hers, as proved by the numerous times she herself brings it up. I've also given several examples above. Besides, that's not a legitimate policy objection anyway since, as I also already quoted, BLPPUBLIC policy says: "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." That undoes your UNDUE claim. If this same info regarding level of completed education is not undue with every other politician, you have a hard time claiming it's undue here. Education is not undue on Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, Virginia Foxx or Michele Bachmann, education cannot be undue for any other politician. Besides, you're missing the forest for the trees. The info is already in the article. This is just a question of restoring it to the infobox. X4n6 (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was responding to your post. Her ABOUTSELF at that time was unduly self-serving and must be attributed as her claim. But I think its trivial. Also, the section header needs to be neutral. It's not dealer's choice. Please self revert your change. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You may have responded to my answer, but you appear not to have read it. 3 BLP policies I have already cited twice all say including her claim is legitimate. And what you think is trivial isn't relevant. What is relevant is policy, which again, calls for inclusion. As for the section header, Merriam Webster defines "whitewash" as "to gloss over or cover up". Cambridge Dictionary defines "whitewash" as: "an attempt to stop people finding out the true facts about a situation." Collins Dictionary explains that transitive verb as: "If you say that people whitewash something, you are accusing them of hiding the unpleasant facts or truth about it in order to make it acceptable.". Exactly what I'm claiming and 3 dictionaries prove it's the exact correct word to describe what some are trying to make happen here. So why would I agree to change it? X4n6 (talk) 02:43, 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)

• Who the fuck cares? – We provide degrees that exist. I don’t understand why we need to provide the lack thereof, unless she makes false claims or it is effectively brought up in an election. She is who she is and it’s pretty obvious she’s not educated in the classical sense – which has little to do with formal certificates. And, she was (barely) re-elected. If in an election it is/was in RS that something of this is a big point; then we must include. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I noticed you disregarded the second part of my argument that referenced policy and why a HS-diploma doesn’t belong in the infobox. However, don’t take my word for it, see these examples:

• Mike Bost
• Solomon Ortiz (I’m not sure why he has a college listed, as it appears to not be sourced)
• Ayanna Pressley Never obtained a degree
• Jerry Carl Did not graduate
• Matt Rosendale Did not attend college

I still don’t see a reason to include a high-school level diploma in a politicians infobox, especially as there are a number of politicians who never obtained a higher education degree and we aren’t including their high school alma mater (because that’d be absurd). Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

As thorough as my response was, it's amusing that you claim I disregarded anything. But the policies you mentioned were frankly, the kitchen sink variety for which you failed to show any relevance. You simply mentioned policies and didn't show what sections you felt were relevant, while I not only cited policy, but directly quoted it. If/when you're more specific with the relevance of your claims, as I was, then I'll respond accordingly.

As for your examples: Mike Bost graduated from HS. His article says so. Solomon Ortiz dropped out of high school and earned his GED in the military. Why there is an unsourced college attribute deserves review. Ayanna Pressley graduated HS and attended Boston University and Boston University Metro College. Like Jerry Karl, who graduated from HS and attended Lake City Community College. Not sure how either helps your point. And Matt Rosendale's education is not listed at all. Likely an oversight in need of correction. Again, not sure how any of this makes a point that you find helpful.

Is a publicly elected figure less of an elected figure depending upon their education? More importantly, is their education only important if they attended college - and not important if they didn't? Because that's what you appear to be claiming. And that is the claim that I strongly disagree with. Certainly, there is no encyclopedic merit to it that you've even attempted to articulate. X4n6 (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

This Wall of Text was cute, but it doesn't escape the fact that the inclusion of this, in a field intended for higher-education, is done with the intent to disparate. Find an existing Wikipedia biography that lists a GED in the infobox. Also, the onus here is on inclusion, not exclusion. Zaathras (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Where did you get your assertion that the field is intended for higher education? Source? Also, the info is already in the article - and was previously in the infobox, so if you want to claim onus - it falls on the editor who removed it without consensus, not the editor who just restored it. X4n6 (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not what ONUS says. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

1. Template:Infobox_person, the description for both this field and alma-mater indicate a leaning towards higher-ed. Several discussions in the talk page archives also have touched upon the listing of secondary schools in the education field, and the opinions seem to be rather dubious about this usage.

2. Read WP:ONUS at your convenience.

3. You neglected to address my request to find other bios that use the infobox in the manner that you're attempting to here. Why is that? Zaathras (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, it would be useful if you addressed the policy links I provided. You would have better standing to request that I give you the examples you asked for. X4n6 (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You have not made any valid, policy-based statements, just strawmen, so there is nothing to respond to. We're not talking about omitting information outright from the article, it is fine to mention a GED and lack of HS graduation in the body. We're talking about not co-opting an irrelevant infobox field to give the subject's GED prominence. And I note for the 3rd time that you have refused to present a single BLP which displays education, so that tangent is settled to my satisfaction, as it is appearing likely none exist. Or if we do manage to find 1 or 2, it will be edge cases like this that need to be fixed. Zaathras (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

ONUS says: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." But ONUS doesn't even apply because the material is already in the article. This discussion is limited just to the Infobox. And this material was in the infobox until this edit removed it without consensus. And ONUS doesn't cover restoring edits that removed content without consensus. X4n6 (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Template:Infobox_person, re-read it at your convenience. I just did. It says: "Education: 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." As has been explained by another editor "e.g." just means "for example." Cambridge Dictionary confirms this. It also says "degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant." They aren't relevant for a GED. But any reading claiming that means the GED is irrelevant is a clear misreading. Whereas "Alma Mater" says: "Alma mater. This parameter is a more concise alternative to (not addition to) |education=, and will often consist of the linked name of the last-attended institution of higher education (not secondary schools). It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise, as perhaps at Bill Gates." Which is consistent with the edit that listed the subject's high school alma mater. Again, try as you may, there is nothing here to support your view that this material should be excluded. X4n6 (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

"Degree" is "a title conferred on students by a college, university, or professional school on completion of a program of study", per Merriam Webster 7a. Neither the high school diploma she didn't earn nor the General Education Diploma she said she obtained from the state of Colorado are degrees. Under Merriam Webster's definition, "alma-mater" applies to the high school Boebert attended but the WP template's alma-mater parameter expressly excludes secondary schools such as U.S. high schools. If Boebert had dropped out of a top college to found a business such as Microsoft, I'd also say that mentioning the college in the infobox might be relevant. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:22, 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)

@Chaheel Riens: vibe check appreciated. Certainly the classism argument has been made by others, such as at [7]. Any claims of disparagement aside, this isn't worthy of mention in an infobox, nor would be a HS diploma. Mention in the article body is plenty of coverage. This is consistent with what we do for other biographies as extensively discussed above. At its core I think this is an editorial decision: WP:WEIGHT informs us how to select what to say in an article, but editorial consensus is how we determine where. VQuakr (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

ETA though that the diff in question, [8] goes out of its way to note that the subject "did not graduate" HS. I feel that it's stretching AGF a little thin to think that that was intended to be a neutral presentation of the subject, and I think that clearly is beyond the terse presentation of facts that we usually provide in BLP infoboxes. VQuakr (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I think your point is quite correct and self-education (a kind term in this case) can impress folks at many levels. Some editors may have been pushing POV as reasons for inclusion or exclusion. So, we ignore those and just remember to be encyclopedic. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

That certainly is a novel, devil's-advocate-style of approach, but it really doesn't match the reality of how GED's are typically depicted. The OP was trying to use the education field of the infobox to highlight the subject's lack of education. There's no honest way to deny the ill intent behind this. Zaathras (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

KRDO report

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)

"Interfered" is an extreme interpretation of those events, IMO. Not worthy of article inclusion. Zaathras (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. VQuakr (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing that could become noteworthy enough to include, especially if it proves to be related to the divorce. But, we don't know enough about it yet so I do agree with excluding it at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Expecting grandmother

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)

• You have a point. I'll leave this to other editors to decide. starship.paint (exalt) 15:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The subject of this article is definitely a public figure. Personal life items generally get mentioned in biographies, even though all public figures have relatives who are not. A sentence seems warranted given that secondary sources have reported it. VQuakr (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• @FormalDude: Re your rvt. The BLP concern isn't about her, it's about her juvenile son and his presumably also juvenile girlfriend. Also ping Kcmastrpc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: The clause "due to her unmarried 17-year old son and his girlfriend expecting a baby boy" doesn't have BLP concerns. They aren't even named or otherwise identified. But the word "unmarried" and probably the entire clause are unnecessary and I would support removing it. Just leave it at ...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)

I'm indifferent on inclusion and can see why editors would feel this should be included. I hadn't considered the BLP aspects. I think that is ok so long as names and not used. Springee (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning Boebert's descendants seems reasonable to me. The "unmarried" part is irrelevant, since pregnancy out of wedlock is commonplace. Dimadick (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the families of politicians sometimes get dragged into the public spotlight, but there was much coverage of the Boebert clan's successive chain of being parents at only age 17-18. Esp. as word of it came from Boebert herself. Zaathras (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that some of the hesitancy here revolves around perceiving young parents as negative, but being a parent at a young age is definetely not inherently negative. VQuak is arguing about relevance which I think is a much more valid concern, although I still don't agree that it's not relevant since it has been covered widely in reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

More specifically, I'm arguing that a little less coverage than the current version is WP:DUE. VQuakr (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd not be averse to the removal of the term "unmarried" - even though this is part of the sourced statement - 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)

Honestly I think the discussion was somewhat derailed by the specious BLP mentions. Are there any objections to the section being shortened as I suggested at [9]? VQuakr (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

"Specious" BLP arguments? WP:AGF. 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)

Not an AGF problem, there's just no BLP issue with mentioning the existence of family members. It was an unnecessary distraction to bring up BLP. I'll go ahead and make the trim now to see if there are any objections. VQuakr (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Efforts to impeach Biden: rationale for separate subsection

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)

Reversion of several edits

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.

• Priviliged motion to impeach Biden. I removed the following sentence: 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.

References

I don't think this criticism is an event with enduring notability in her bio. The two efforts to impeach are, as are the votes referring them to the committees, but some soundbites by fellow members are not.

• Twitter account.

Pre-edit and current version.

Boebert has blocked her critics on Twitter. She was sued for blocking a constituent, Bri Buentello. 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. The case was dismissed with prejudice on October 28, 2022.

My reverted version.

Boebert has blocked critics on her private Twitter account. A constituent, Bri Buentello, sued her. The case was dismissed with prejudice on October 28, 2022.

References

The source clearly states that Boebert blocked Buentello from her private Twitter account @laurenboebert, not her House account @repboebert. My reverted edit removed the preliminary injunction because, after the final judgment, it is an unimportant detail. I also tightened the narrative (sued for blocking constituent from private account, case dismissed), did some ce (active voice instead of passive), and removed a subheadline ("| Strictly Legal") and an unnecessary parameter from cites. Is this an event with enduring notability in her bio? I don't think so but I didn't remove it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC) Improved version: 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)

Addressing Legislation Introduced and/or passed

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)

We can add it, assuming all policies are met. Got any WP:RS and proposed text to add? You don't have to share it here, but it might be better in the long run if you do gain consensus here first. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

there are several reliable sources such as Congress.gov and local journals that I will source when I include it in her article. Afakhoury1007 (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

While I think adding legislation is fine, any text added should be supported by independent, reliable sources (i.e., we shouldn't be sourcing legislation solely to press releases, websites that don't meet WP:RS, or the legislation itself). Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Elaborate on the "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)

Good question, I did not notice that clause. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I recently visited her district to meet with the people of it. I'm an independent journalist with no political affiliation. I spoke with leaders of 3 churches, the leaders of 2 different county DNC offices and small business owners. Will be releasing articles and videos in the near future regarding my trip. Afakhoury1007 (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

maybe this might help you find something that passed the House, though co-sponsoring something that dozens of others did (like censuring Schiff) isn't particular to her. You'd need a secondary source as well, like a press report that specifically mentions her. Lots of folks introduce bills that die in committee. Her Pueblo Jobs Act was sent to the Armed Services committee in April. soibangla (talk) 02:03, 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)
• The two U.S. senators from Colorado, Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper, introduced a bill with the same language in the Senate, without Boebert's insinuation that the Army had intended to not use the standard Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process when closing the Pueblo Chemical Depot. They also give credit to Boebert and her con-sponsors's Ken Buck and Doug Lamborn's companion legislation in the House, something Boebert doesn't do. The bill is included in the National Defense Authorization Act which also includes a Boebert-sponsored amendment banning certain books from DoDDS and another amendment to bar funding for military members stationed in states where abortion is illegal to travel to states where it isn't to obtain an abortion. The Pueblo Chieftain appears to be the only newspaper that mentions the bill, and it has exactly one sentence on its purpose: "The Pueblo Jobs Act aims to create at least 1,000 jobs in town after the depot closes." Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 19:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Criminal record

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)

Beetlejuice incident

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)

Trivia and gossipy, does not belong in the article. Zaathras (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

MANDY. They don't just go into the audience every night and remove select theatergoers. May still be UNDUE but it's clear she was weirdly out of control, etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 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)

Wait and see. Clearly it was covered but when dealing with a public figure who gets quite a bit of coverage we need to zoom out and look for things that summarize or major events/issues. This, so far, hasn't risen to that level. In the spirit of WP:NORUSH wait and see if this has a lasting impact. Springee (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean it would be in personal life though because we include other incidents where she was unruly (yelling at police officers) at a concert is mentioned. Melofy (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

meh. exclude, I say soibangla (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Did the campaign manager lie or did Boebert lie to him? There's video of Boebert vaping and whooping it up, reported by KUSA-TV, AP, ABC, and Business Insider, among others. It's not as if anyone was expecting decorum from Rep. Boebert at this point but the pro-lifer snubbing the pregnant woman sitting behind her when she asked her to stop, is noteworthy, as is the denial afterward. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 18:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Does it matter who lied to who? Politicians lie all the time. Is there any WP:LASTING impact from this incident? There might be, but it's too soon to say. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Well, she probably won't be able to go back and see how the play turns out. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems a load of reliable sources are running with it: the NYT just uploaded a piece about her apology. I would've leaned more towards exclusion in the early days when only rags were publishing info about this, but with a plethora of reliable sources now covering it and her subsequent apology (NYT, WaPo, CNN, The Guardian for just four) it feels due to include to me, unless there's some policy that indicates it's undue that I'm missing - the aforementioned WP:LASTING appears to refer to the notability of pages rather than content. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I think LASTING is a good test to apply for content in an article as well, but if you prefer, we can consider if it's WP:DUE or not. It's certainly looking more DUE today than it did yesterday, but we are still in the "early days" of this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Y'know, DUE has always confused me. I always thought it was about representing viewpoints proportionately, so holders of fringe views (flat earthers, "moon is made of cheese" enthusiasts etc) don't get their views platformed as mainstream. But I'm going offtopic here. That sounds good to me; I'd almost argue it's ready for inclusion as all of the big US outlets (and a few big UK ones!) are giving it sigcov, but I'll wait for consensus to form before jumping to anything. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the significant coverage from numerous reliable US news outlets means the Beetlejuice anecdote should be included. The coverage of her official apology, as well as the secondary sources juxtaposing her actions with her official positions, makes me think that this should be included. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem with just looking at the number of sources is NOTNEWS and 10YEAR. That a large number of sources will run a quick article on this same topic isn't surprising. In the paper days column space cost money so a paper would consider what material was worth the cost of printing it. With digital publishing space is effectively free and sources are chasing clicks. The important thing is how much effort is needed to create a X word story. Media companies like stories that are quick to write with minimal research (reporter A reads sources mentioned in previous articles on the same topic, resummarizes the same story, hits submit) because they don't cost much. This is why we often see a wave of me-too stories after something like this happens. Such content is often fleeting in the bigger picture but the low cost to publish and the need for all the different media sites to fight over the limited clicks this story will get create a perverse incentive to run with content like this. Unless this has lasting significance it isn't DUE as it isn't part of a reasonably summary of this person. My view would change if a year from now this is still getting discussed or if this results in some sort of long term impact to her/her political career or if this becomes part of a pattern of behavior and several articles on this pattern are published. Springee (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You mean to say, this is very surprising and out of character for Ms. Boebert? In 10 years, nobody may even recognize her name. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a lot of sources running the same "quick article on this same topic". First, the story was that she was ejected for singing loudly and otherwise being disruptive. Then, a story in the Denver Post added that she was vaping in front of a pregnant woman who asked her to stop and she didn't. Next, there's the video showing her and her date groping each other. I'm moving more and more to this being DUE, but I want to see that it doesn't completely fade away first. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I've been against inclusion thus far in multiple posts. But Springee is moving me more toward inclusion. We may need to include more stories related to "pattern of behavior". O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm less meh about today than I was yesterday soibangla (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

While space is effectively free in online publishing, I think notability can still be established when reliable new sources are publishing associated stories. Two wrongs don't make a right, but this article has plenty of anecdotes that are not big news long after the fact (campaign finance issues, Shooter's grill food poisoning, refusal to get a magnetic search at the Capitol), and I believe they should stay. I think this Beetlejuice story, while most likely not a defining moment of Boebert's career, has sufficient notability and merits inclusion given the amount of coverage it has received. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Ten years hence in retrospect, this incident may well be viewed as the straw that broke the camel's back. If, as seems likely, Boebert loses reelection in 2024, analysts will mark this as the event that changed voters' perception of her from a tough-minded populist icon to an unsocialized, unglued punk. In the next week or two, I expect to see more RS publish surveys of her increasingly erratic behavior. Those would provide better article content than a recitation of incidents selected by us as editors. So like several others, I am on the verge of changing my view from wait to WEIGHT, with well-sourced inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s interesting to note comparisons with the Jill Biden “comparing Hispanics to breakfast tacos” Wikipedia page. The editor consensus on that page was that the incident did not warrant inclusion on Jill’s page because it was too ephemeral and did not get widely reported on in the weeks after. Using that same reasoning, we cannot know whether this Beatlejuice incident - which just occurred - will be widely covered in the coming weeks or not. Logic - and consistent application of Wikipedia policy - therefore dictates that it is not included on the page until enough time has passed to determine whether it does indeed continue to be reported on. 2603:7000:3D00:1882:780C:BC70:6667:C24 (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Reports they were also fondling and this is a family friendly musical. But none of this is surprising. I'd hold off for now. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Who needs reports when you have video? The Colorado Sun has the extended version, including the boob massage, the talking-to during intermission, and Boebert taking a couple more hits from the vape pipe shortly afterwards. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 19:26, 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. Photos of Japan (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Sitting Congresswoman caught in video engaging in a sex act in a theater during a family-friendly musical. Why are we dilly dallying back and forth in Talk about whether or not this is notable and will have a lasting impact? It's patiently obvious to anyone following this story that this will be a lasting memory most people will have of her and could easily have major implications for her political future. Nobody remembers or cares about her yelling at cops arresting underage drinkers, but that merits a few sentences in her article. Somebody just edit the article already and be done with it. FredericktheWise (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I would love to make this addition to the article but I'm not sure where it belongs. Under "personal life"? Or does it deserve it's own section? Tdmurlock (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Tdmurlock - a combination of both? Subsection of Personal life? Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I just added the 2024 election to the "Elections" section and added the Beetlejuice incident to it — it'll probably play a role during the campaign. According to RS, Boebert is trying to shed her Washington rabble-rousing image for the voters in her district to "normal congresswoman" (this may be part of it) and shot herself in the foot with the Beetlejuice incident. We shouldn't go into more detail — a couple of 30 and 40-somethings groping like teenagers in a darkened theater, possibly trying to shock the stuffy adults in the next row. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 12:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Space4Time3Continuum2x, I think the consensus is still very much on the fence if this material should be included and if so how. In your recent edits [10], I feel like there was some level of SYNTH in trying to tie this incident to her 2024 election efforts (" ...to that of a normal congresswoman working hard for her constituents.[101][104] On September 10, the attempt suffered a setback when...") I'm not sure the Intelligencer actually supports that claim nor that it's the best source to use for the basic claims it does make. Again, I think we are still in an area where we should wait a month or two and see what the response to this is. If a RS comes out and bundles this with other similar acting out incidents then I think it should be included in a paragraph on behavior or the like. Currently I don't see a strong tie to the 2024 election season. This is honestly one of the hardest parts about including content like this. If we are going to write a good article then all the content needs to fit into some larger picture we are constructing. If an incident isn't major enough to be it's own thing then we have to ask what sub-topic of the person does it support. If none then it probably really isn't DUE. However, I suspect over time, if things like this continue to repeat then this will be a supporting example of her "out of control nature" (my words) and RSs will report on this. Springee (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I moved the Beetlejuice part to "Personal life" and removed the op-edish "suffered a setback". Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 13:41, 17 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)

Think this has reached the stage of inclusion, also think the story on it being about her and her date acting in a lewd manner is what should be included. nableezy - 15:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Concur, and have added to the section. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I've substituted wording from the source, "male companion" to replace "date", which is unsourced and would ultimately need to originate from the couple, who are silent on their relationship. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Beetlejuice incident2

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)

Semi-private? It's a public theater. I don't see any good reason to exclude their sexual "fondling" as many RS describe it. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a dark space with the other patrons normally watching the stage or screen. ser!, this sentence draws a direct line between the second video (with the "fondling" footage and her apology: 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)

The Guardian source draws a direct line between them. The title says, in these exact words: Lauren Boebert says she ‘fell short of values’ after Beetlejuice groping video and 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)

The headline doesn't reflect the content of the Guardian article where the fondling is tacked on as an afterthought at the very end. Politico says that 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'm not sure what the scope for analysing the video is as that might fall under WP:OR, but if you think it's better for the BLP I can separate it into a second sentence, something along the lines of the quote in your above message from Politico's article. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

A sidewalk is a "dark space" at night, that doesn't mean it's not public. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing "semi-private" about being in a darkened, public theater. Just ask Paul Reubens (r.i.p.). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I know it's a public space (and, apparently unlike Boebert and companion, I'm quite aware of video surveillance just about everywhere) but you normally don't expect the video footage of people eating popcorn and scratching their noses and other body parts in the dark to be requested by media outlets. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 16:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

You normally don't expect people to sexually fondle each other in the audience at a Broadway play either. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Onstage, yes. Next row, not so much. But I suspect that this may have been an intentional hommage to the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape engineered to boost her tough guy persona in her hyper-MAGA district. Given that her last election was a squeeker, it's not clear that would have been a good decision, but not everyone always acts in their best interest. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Video footage of eating popcorn and scratching noses is indeed not interesting. Video footage of disruptive behavior, including vaping and fondling, is a different story. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Depending on which way this rolls, either Boebert or her opponent will be discussing this straight through the next election. Also, we don't know whether charges will be brought under state or local law. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The fact it was captured with an IR camera should give anyone pause. While we've all probably been in a dark theatre, some of us have gotten to second base while there as well. The difference is we now have technology that can see in the dark, and this is a couple of grown adults (not teenagers). Nevertheless, WP:PERSISTENCE ought apply here and the entire incident should be left out until there is any indication that this event will have any lasting impact. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm also still in the wait and see camp. If nothing else, this is a BLP and we should err on the side of exclusion until the long term significance of this is clear. Springee (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that there was something wrong with her behavior? What is the BLP issue? Possibly no DUE significance, but it's hardly a disparagement to reflect verified reports. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

We arent limited to the original reports, and what we personally feel merits inclusion, eg "acts between consenting adults in a darkened theater", is not what we base our articles on, what we base them on is the weight of coverage. The coverage has moved on from vape exposure to lewd acts in public, and that is what is getting most of the sustained attention. You now have coverage in The Guardian about the groping video, along with members of her own party calling it out, eg here and here. The coverage here merits inclusion imo, and personal views on what should or should not be included should not matter over the views of our sources on what they cover. nableezy - 00:00, 18 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)

There are sources identifying him all of which are not RS so I won't repeat them. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

No need to be coy. The NY Post, citing the Daily Mail, already made a brief appearance in this article. Nobody knows nothing, and Boebert and the unknown male aren’t saying. The Daily Mail cited a "well-placed source" as saying, 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)

• The companion's name has now been added to the article using The Guardian as a source. Problem is, The Guardian simply says reported by The Advocate, and it looks like their source is The Daily Mail, which is deprecated. What think folks? O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I already removed the name before seeing your edit. Exactly my thinking, and the Pueblo Chieftain has already disproven part of the Daily Mail's story. 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)

Aaand Where is Matt? has reverted my revert. It's one RS based on a deprecated source, shame on the Guardian. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 13:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

In other recent discussions people have argued that it doesn't matter if the original sources is poor so long as the source we are using (ie the one citing DM) is RS. This seems to be an area where Wikipedia goes back and forth and perhaps needs more discussion. BLP considerations trump the WP:RS concerns. BLP has an entire section on the presumption of privacy [11] especially when the person isn't otherwise notable. It seems safe to assume the date is not a public or otherwise notable figure thus BLP policy indicates we should not name the person. Springee (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Even if this were from a reliable source there is no reason to name her date. That person is not a public figure and WP:NPF cautions us from including material on non-public figures that may damage their reputation. There is no reason to include this person's name here, not everything you can find in a source belongs in an article, an article that is about Boebert, not her "companion". nableezy - 13:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This exactly. Springee (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The implicated non-NOTABLE male must not be named. The question still is whether they entered the theater as a pair or whether this was two strangers in the night. We have no RS to call him her "companion" per BLP. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This matters because? I looked at four sources (including one that used the AP article), found two calling the male person sitting next to her "her companion" and "her male companion", respectively, and one that referred to them as "the party". AP: the congresswoman and her companion; WaPo: Boebert and her male companion; NYT: ... were informed that two patrons were not adhering to the policies ... Early in the second act, after hearing complaints that the patrons were again being loud and recording the show, the theater enlisted help from the Denver Police and asked the party to leave. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 16:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC) The sources cited in the article: Intelligencer — the person she was with; CNN — Boebert and her companion; Guardian1 — a male guest accompanying her; Guardian2 — her companion. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, he certainly accompanied her when the gendarmes led them up the aisle to daylight. I am not conviced either that they were previously acquainted or that any source has credibly verified that. Sources get sloppy -- shades of "Hunter Biden's laptop" that nobody's ever seen, inferred from various computer files. She's said she is in the fog of divorce. Everything is on the table. This is very likely my last comment on this, until more facts emerge. SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

additional information about Boebert’s companion to Beetlejuice – whom she has been dating for months. I dont know what youre trying to drive at here, that she was engaged in such behavior with a stranger or something, but kindly stop it. nableezy - 17:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing of the kind. And if you think you think that unsourced OR assumptions are the basis for BLP content or personal attacks, "kindly stop it". SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Im unaware of any unsourced OR on my part, but I do see you repeatedly making comments like she was weirdly out of control ... If, as seems likely, Boebert loses reelection in 2024, analysts will mark this as the event that changed voters' perception of her from a tough-minded populist icon to an unsocialized, unglued punk. ... But I suspect that this may have been an intentional hommage to the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape engineered to boost her tough guy persona in her hyper-MAGA district ... I hate to ask this, (implying you know what youre hinting at there and feigning ignorance now) but is there any RS reporting or statement from Boebert that she and the fellow knew one another before the show? All of that is unsourced OR, all of that has nothing to do with what we would include in the article. Ive now given you a source saying they have been dating for months, so you done now? nableezy - 00:50, 19 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)

I agree with the passage's inclusion and dueness, but also agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x's on removing the last sentence mentioning lewd acts (which we describe in a bizarre way, because anything short of graphic appeals to readers' basest prurient curiosity is apparently euphemistic). If we do include it, just mention "lewd acts" and keep it at that. DFlhb (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2023

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2023 (2)

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)

 Not done: From that source, 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)

Adjusted text and added cite. Although I'm sure some reality has "seeped" into some schools. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

far-right

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)

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. 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. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

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. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@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. 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). 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. VQuakr (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity

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? Skysong263 (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yea, it's called tanning. Boebert is as white as white can be. Zaathras (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Is she not of Belgian origin? 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. Zaathras (talk) 02:59, 2 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. Uhoj (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Jayson Boebert's arrest on January 10, 2024

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)

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)

It involved him trying to pursue criminal charges against her, so I most certainly think it belongs.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. – Muboshgu (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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. OriEri (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Filing for, and dropping of, restraining order

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)

I agree and feel that this restraining order is notable given the accuser/subject is a sitting member of the US Congress. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

This seems to rather obviously fail the WP:10YT. Should be omitted. VQuakr (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

oh the drama. we are not TMZ. skip it. soibangla (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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)