Talk:Lauren Boebert

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)

Why are some editors trying to whitewash this subject'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)