Talk:Lauren Boebert

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)

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)

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)

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)