This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Colorado / 50,000 Challenge B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado, our collaboration to improve, create, and update Wikipedia articles about the U.S. State of Colorado. To comment about this article, select the New section tab above. For questions about, or to make suggestions for Colorado articles, go to our project's talk page. We invite you to join us! This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help! Women's History B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. U.S. Congress B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Politics: American / Gun politics B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Gun politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

May as well also include brief mention of her calls to impeach VP Harris and Homeland Security Secy Mayorkis. There was also broad coverage of her having put out a graphic with impeach misspelled. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found a citation for the impeachments. However, I could understand though if people it was WP:UNDUE. There have been several efforts to impeach Joe Biden by Republicans, so it is not really that special. I think it is significant enough for now. A misspelling on a graphic is amusing, but not significant from an encyclopedic perspective. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the spelling thing is arguably as encylopedic as her husband's antics, beating Lauren, dropping his trousers at the bowling alley, throwing fries at the owner, Jailtime, her lies about it, etc. But I don't care. SPECIFICO talk

A mispeling is embarasing but hardly encylopeedic. Leeve it out. Springee (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the folks who discussed this in the media used it as an indication of ignorance and stupidity. But we would do better with sources and content that discuss that explicitly rather than mocking her for it with this example. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"used it as an indication of ignorance and stupidity" Which is a rather stereotypical association of poor education with stupidity. Boebert is a high school dropout, and her vocabulary skills (based on several news stories) were never that great. Her intelligence level probably has little to do with her lack of education, or her unfamiliarity with certain terms or their proper context. Dimadick (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly my point. What's yours? Do you have sourcing that discusses or evaluates her rather than mocking her? SPECIFICO talk 13:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I have been following news items about her through political blogs, after working on improving some aspects of her article a couple of years ago. I soon started noticing that they were mocking her spelling errors, and noticed a couple of her interviews where she seemed genuinely unfamiliar with terms which she encountered. It makes sense to me that someone who never completed their secondary education may have neither encountered, nor memorized terms and topics familiar to the average college student.Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable inference, and one that has been made by many RS, that someone whose education is at the level of a 12-year old may not be well equipped to do the business of a legislator. But at any rate, we base evaluation of the content on RS rather than reading lots of self-published blogs. RS don't treat her very kindly for many reasons. SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many intelligent and capable people are not highly educated, especially in the formal sense. Obsession with credentials is a modern disorder that is typically self-serving. Bobby Lawndale (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate the connection you are trying to make between your comment and the discussion in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, I don't see the connection between your comment on Boebert's education or on her husband and her calling for impeachment of Harris and/or Mayorkas. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the thread was discussing not primarily her call for impeachment but her misspelling, etc. and I view this as UNDUE per se, but I noted that there is content about her husband, etc in the Personal section that is roughly on a par. I think we need summary tertiary RS coverage of this kind of content, not examples from which each reader may draw a personal inference. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the opinion on keeping the section removed? I think it seems valid, only a single source I accept when you consider that two seem influenced by the Mother Jones article, but it seems detailed enough - even naming at leat one member of staff - and a source is a source. (Or three sources.) Given her position within the American Government structure, you'd expect her own business practices to reflect upon her, and that's what is happening here?

According to The Independent and Salon.com, quoting an article in Mother Jones, several former Shooters' employees said they were shorted on their earnings at a time when Boebert was spending "exorbitant sums on breast implants," describing the workplace experience as "a nightmare," and her as "a monster." They said their pay was often received late, paid in cash from the register or from her husband's wallet, although without employee taxes being deducted or paid.^[1][2][3]

Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Jones does credible and reliable investigative reporting. If it is accepted and found noteworthy by multiple other RS, it is worth inclusion in the article. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"They said their pay was often received late" Is that really unusual? My older brother has worked for the same restaurant on-and-off for the last 25 years. His payment is often delayed by a week or two, with the typical excuse that his bosses have insufficient funds to cover all the restaurant's running expenses on time. Also, one of his former bosses at the restaurant was often cash-strapped due to his own medical expenses for a number of serious illnesses. Dimadick (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find it unusual that you don't find it unusual. It may be a country/cultural thing, and I really don't want to get into a sniping match over different country's ways of doing things, but in what world is waiting up to two weeks for entitled pay to be considered not unusual, ie "usual"? I didn't spend the entire day doing so, but I asked a few of my friends who work in hospitality from potwash to floor manager, and all where aghast at the concept of not being paid on time, viewing it as a sign of poor business. (One said "If they don't pay on time, I don't turn up on time, and who do you think would get the calls about unprofessionalism?" - although there were a few more flowery terms in there as spoken.)

Anyway, back to the point - is your brother's boss an American politician, businesswoman, and gun rights activist serving as the U.S. representative for Colorado's 3rd congressional district, or indeed any other state or district? If not, it's not really notable, but the point is - Boebert is notable, and her business practices reflect on her personally. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really unusual? ANS: Yes. And quite likely illegal under Colorado and US law. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This content is UNDUE. MJ is a poor quality, very partisan source so we need to be careful in deciding if anything they say has sufficient weight for inclusion. The fact that two other sources published me too articles within a day of the original MJ source doesn't help as those sources are also very partisan and they didn't actually add anything more to the original claims. Furthermore, what are the claims in question? They read as much like disgruntled employees just complaining as anything with real substance. When where these claims published? No surprise during the lead up to an election when all sorts of muck raking occurs. More importantly, we are almost a year later and nothing has become of these unsubstantiated accusations. Do we have any new information or sources on this? If not, then we don't include it as it clearly didn't have staying power. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a repository of every accusation made against unpopular politicians by sources that have a clear bias against said politician. Springee (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the claims that MJ is unreliable need to be substantiated by you, as you're the one objecting, but a quick scan of the website shows many articles critical of Biden, and pulling few punches when discussing his term and policies. I say again, that it seems highly relevant that the way a politician behaves when running a restaurant is telling when it comes to how they may run the country as well. With regard to DUE and UNDUE - the grill closed in July 2022, so it's natural that reporting on it would be less than when open. The fact that these things have come up again suggests the opposite of UNDUE, that something that happened maybe a year ago is still relevant to the current context - ie the lead up to an election. You call it muck-raking, others call it investigative reporting. Wikipedia calls it WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which I'm aware are different sections of the same article). Additionally, checking Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard seems to uphold Mother Jones as a reliable and acceptable source. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only one who objected. Richard-of-Earth also removed the same content. But diving into the issue with MJ, they are a very partisan source and the WP:RSP entry even makes it clear that even if MJ's facts are true, the weight that should be applied is questionable. We can also take this a step further. If we think the content of this article are due why not mention the positive things MJ reported? Why not mention that Boebert bought a car for a down on luck employee? Why just quote the gossipy negative claims? MJ is the only original source for these claims. The other sources just parrot what was said in quick to publish me too articles that don't actually investigate the claims. That means that the whole of these negative claims, made by unnamed people, come from MJ. That is a problem given this is a BLP. You said these things came up again but all three sources were published over 2 calendar days. Springee (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because an article in Salon did not seem enough support for such content. When it was put back with better support and attribution to those sources in the prose, my objection was satisfied. You can count me as neutral on its inclusion. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no opposition to using MJ as a positive reference. Why would you suppose I do? When I added all three references I included the <ref name> option so they could be used again. If you think buying a car is DUE, and adequately sourced, I would accept that as a suitable example of humanitarian spirit in action. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of it is UNDUE. When you review MJ note that it's clear that a we should consider if a MJ fact is really DUE. Since all of this (both negative and positive) is sourced solely to MJ and since this a lot of unsubstantiated claims there is no reason to include it. Again, Wikipedia is meant to provide a summary, these select nuggets of negativity are the sort of thing we expect from second tier partisan sources trying to drum up negative press before an election. They are the sort of thing that will pass the 10YEAR test. If later sources pick this up and add more facts to back the claims we can review it again in the future. Springee (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, UNDUE is not the same as unverified. MJ is a reliable source for fact. Regardless of whether it's biased, that has nothing to do with whether it's reliable. The issue is whether other publications have found this significant, thus establishing it a part of an NPOV narrative for this page. That is, whether it's UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How reliable is MJ for facts? Well if we go back to Pinto Madness their impact was high but their factual reporting was very poor. However, that was a long time ago. More recently we have this article by Reason [1] which pointed out some serious issues with their reporting. The original MJ article is still up without corrections [2]. That is not good investigative journalism. But let's assume MJ is factually reporting allegations by former employees. Does that make the allegations true? Does it provide the full context or just the POV of the employee? Are those employees correct in their recall etc? Did this amount to anything beyond some accusations? You are correct, something can be verified yet still be UNDUE (or WP:PROPORTION which is what most people actually mean when they reference DUE/WEIGHT). As WP:V says, verification isn't a guarantee of inclusion. In this case we should ask, does it pass the 10Year test? Taking a step back, of all the facts in the MJ article, why should we focus on these in particular? Aren't we meant to summarize the article? It appears that the thrust of the article was how Boebert ran the business as a whole, not just a few claims. Yes, Salon decided to amplify just those points but can we honestly say that was a one paragraph summary of what MJ said they found? This is why I ask, why those particular facts? Why just the negative ones, why don't we just include the positive facts and ignore the negative ones? I mean if we are OK with just extracting the negatives why shouldn't we be OK with just extracting the positives? Neither would be an accurate summary of the source. Anyway, this these are unsubstantiated accusations that were selectively removed from a source. They don't represent a summary of the source nor do they pass the 10Year test. Springee (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Boebert herself will pass the 10-year test. But this does need additional sourcing. I don't think the "accusations" are in doubt. SPECIFICO talk 01:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:D I bet that would apply to a lot of BLPs we produce here! Springee (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

" a quick scan of the website shows many articles critical of Biden" I fail to see your point here. Mother Jones per its [self-described history] has had a focus on exposing corporate corruption, and is not particularly friendly to either of the two major parties. In their words: " And while big money has always called the tune in American politics, the money has become bigger than ever and its influence ever more blatant. In 1996, the magazine launched the Mother Jones 400, an investigation of the largest donors to political campaigns." Dimadick (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is further corroborated by your own statement - Mother Jones doesn't care who the person is if they've done wrong: "and is not particularly friendly to either of the two major parties". The term "partisan" here is being used as a euphemism for "biased", and it's been shown that that isn't the case. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As this seems to have quietened down - can we just be clear on how many editors are against the inclusion, for, and neutral? It doesn't seem that Springee has the consensus they refer to when removing the topic. It seems to be that especially as the editor who originally removed the post is now declaring neutral, that there is more in favour of inclusion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would read Dimadick's reply as an oppose as well. If you want it in start a RfC so the consensus will be clear. Springee (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y'see, that's not the case at all though is it? Dimadick just questions whether late payment is unusual, and asks for clarification on my own point. Without further input that's at best neutral, as is Richard-of-Earth. It would also be reasonably to assume that Activist who originally inserted the section is also for the inclusion. The only person who has expressed outright opposition is you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best not to presume and a RfC would address the issue. Springee (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of neutrality I'd suggest dropping "false" in the above phrase.

As we are learning a lot of false news or misinformation is turning somewhat true. Better to stay neutral and not adopt this type of editorial style. It's been a while since I edited on Wikipedia so forgive me it this is the wrong way to approach this issue. Ijeffsc (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Somewhat true"? Where do you come up with that? It's false. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu - I think this is the path OP is walking... Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where to add this information, so thought I'd ask here. I think it is noteable that it at least be briefly mentioned somewhere that Lauren Boebert will become a grandmother in April, at the young age of 36, because her eldest son who is 17 is expecting a child. She recently announced her eldest son was expecting at an event for the Conservative group Moms for America. In 2019 the teenage birth rate among teen women in the U.S. ages 15-19 was only 17.4% (source), so a teenager giving birth is very uncommon, which makes this additionally noteable.

Tons of news sources have reported on this, such as Fox News, The Independent, People, New York Post and many other news sources. So it's very newsworthy and one or more of those many news articles could be cited and information about this could be taken from them. Greshthegreat (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be newsworthy, but is it notable? What is Boebert's stance on family issues - is her son married, in a stable relationship, estranged or not, etc? How old is the person actually giving birth? Does she fall into the 15-19 age bracket? As I assume it's not her actual son who's giving birth to a child (now that would be both notable and newsworthy,) his age is not relevant to your statistics. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Her son is 17, his girlfriend is 15. She is pregnant. Boebert wants to end sex education in schools, meanwhile she was a teen mom, her son is about to be a teen dad, her possible daughter in law (assuming they marry) is 15. It sounds notable to me. I mean her husband showing his penis to teenage girls is notable, so is this 2603:8081:8700:687D:C657:D0BF:7B1D:23A (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can merit a sentence in Lauren Boebert#Personal life, but mind your instinct to right great wrongs. That's not what we're here for. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion needs to be framed in terms of the extent and narratives of RS sources on the matter, not editors' amazement. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Post is solid. Mentions that Boebert made her mother a grandmother at 36. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a wonderful uplifting story, and since she boasted it at CPAC, there seems no reason not to include it in her bio. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that makes a difference. I'm not American so am unfamiliar with all the laws - be they state or national - but isn't 15 under the age of consent? Is that notable in it's own right? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a short paragraph about this to the bottom of the Personal Life section. Looks like a few people have already helped edit it a bit as well. To answer SPECIFICO's question, there is no federal law banning teenage pregnancies, but Colorado has a law that says anyone under 15, can consent to having sex with anyone who is within 4 years of age to them. Boeberts eldest son is 17, and his girlfriend is 15, meaning they are only two years apart in age. Thus this is legal. (Source) Greshthegreat (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'm surprised, but at the same time, I'm not surprised. Go 'Murica. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not my question, but thanks. The Colorado mountain air is crisp and clear. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to see what Wikipedia knew about Lauren Boebert. Not normally one to weigh-in on Social Platforms, but boy this article is heavily weighted 'against' her.

I've heard bad things about Wikipedia being slanted in their POV. This article would support those observations. You folks will forgive me if I withhold donations to the site until you get back to your claimed Neutral Point of View. 2603:6011:A700:1DDE:616A:4232:FCBA:EE41 (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could provide examples where you see issues. That doesn't guarantee they get addresses but it is helpful to know where involved people see issues. Springee (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view means neutrally reflecting what the sources say. It does not mean that the article has to be "neutral". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]