Talk:Lauren Boebert: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lauren Boebert article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. 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).

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: January 10 to 16, 2021 (25th)

A fact from Lauren Boebert appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 July 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Lauren Boebert encourages her servers to openly carry firearms inside her restaurant in Rifle, Colorado? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lauren Boebert.

I moved the far-right label further up in the introduction next to her name as a politician but the edit was for some reason reversed [1]. Apart from slightly adjusting the wording (the label is already included in the intro!), nothing major was changed. Boebert should be considered in the same group of Republicans as Marjorie Taylor Greene. Can we agree that Boebert's status as a far-right politician in the House is an indisputable fact? If yes, why not place the label next to her profession? NikolaosFanaris (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Moving material into the first sentence of a contemporary politics BLP is always going to be contentious.

2. No, you didn't just move it. The actual proposed edit changed it from a sourced opinion to a label in WP:WIKIVOICE. Why are you claiming otherwise here?

3. No, we don't agree this is a good change.

4. Even if we did agree this was a good change, you still can't make it since this exact subject has already been the subject of a RfC, at Talk:Lauren Boebert/Archive 2#RfC about adding "far-right" to the lead. You need a clear consensus from a discussion with a similar level of involvement and visibility to establish that consensus has changed per WP:CONLEVEL. VQuakr (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FN, this was covered by a recent RfC here "far-right"_to_the_lead. Your edit violates the RfC closing and thus is against consensus. Springee (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the refs that were deleted to the mention in the body and split off her denial with its own reference. The efforts to whitewash her extremist far-right leanings and positions are worrying and unwikipedian. Instead, per WP:PRESERVE, deletionists should seek to fix and improve the issues they raise. Instead, they just delete and protect her (this deletionist pattern extends to other extremist far-right politicians like Candace Owens). They are not seeking to improve this coverage, and that violates the PRESERVE policy. Seek to improve, not completely delete.

If you have the perception to recognize a problem and the energy to complain about it, then rechannel that perception and energy into actually doing something to resolve those issues. Don't just complain. That's irritating and unconstructive. Instead, try writing from your opponent's POV. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed on the removal of the far-right label in the first sentence, as there is no consensus for that (although I find it absolutely ridiculous that we are still debating about the views of an actual conspiracy theorist who constantly promotes extremist notions and insurrection). In regards to your second point, thank you for raising this. There is a continuous pattern by 2-3 users who are deliberately trying to whitewash her extremist positions - same thing applies to Candace Owens. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long-standing and clear pattern of whitewashing with no effort to actually resolve the problems they complain about. It's classic POV editing, ergo a violation of NPOV. They just delete. That's very unwikipedian and against policy. They tend to protect members of the Freedom Caucus, especially the most radical ones. For more information about these extremists:

1. Turning outrage into power: How the far right is changing the GOP
2. A MAGA squad of Trump loyalists sees its influence grow amid demands for political purity among Republicans
3. The GOP Has Its Own Squad—of Stupid Sycophants and Sickos
4. Meet the pro-Putin Republicans and conservatives]
5. The Pro-Putin Wing of the GOP
6. Republican Idiot Brigade Debuts Dumbest COVID Claims Yet

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: cool it with the partisan rhetoric. Just be plain, and don't basically refbomb here with Vanity Fair, Daily Beast, and "Republican Accountability Project" articles and expect editors to view your approach as impartial; it's not. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The multitude of sources provided above are more than acceptable to support the "far-right" label. ValarianB (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs in the body, having it in the lead adds nothing since the body is where the sufficient context is. Bill Williams 04:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the close of the RfC, there is rough consensus for the label to be included in the lead. ... The reliable sources are there, but the Manual of Style asks us to attribute this, and since we are not speaking of David Irving-like levels of scholarly/newsorg consensus about contentious labels, please attribute it. The current mention in the third paragraph attributing "far-right" with "Often described as" is in line with the close. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Post actual proof on this page and not accusation that Boebert is connected to Qanon. 2601:844:4100:6FE0:C91A:B084:6C0D:EBE3 (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC) 2601:844:4100:6FE0:C91A:B084:6C0D:EBE3 (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: see cited sources Cannolis (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "source" you site does NOT describe "close ties" - being invited one time to speak does NOT make a "close ties" relationship. If a democratic senator is invited to speak on a Fox News program, do they then have "close ties" to Fox News. Additionally, the "praised the far-right extremist organization the Proud Boys" is a complete lie. Boebert's "former top aide" posting something on Facebook does NOT EQUATE to Boebert "praising" the group! Please correct the sentence by removing ", Boebert had close ties with far-right groups such as QAnon, whose conspiracy theories she promotes, and praised the far-right extremist organization the Proud Boys.[3]". Attaching a citation like this is NOT good enough, Cannolis. It is NOT "proof" for your statement. 2604:2D80:9194:8000:C122:8707:EEB5:E696 (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

There were no GED tests during the peak of CoVid, she had failed twice, she was in the middle of her campaign and successful completion of the 4 GED tests by May 2020 has not been verified.

This should be edited to say that Boebert "claims to have earned a GED, a month before her election primary, but that claim has not been verified" 75.166.139.159 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MadGuy7023, please provide reliable sources that this claim is correct in the first place, else why is it present in the article? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.105.108 (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per source already in the article: "[Boebert] didn’t actually get her GED degree until May of this year, about a month before the June primaries and five months after entering the race."^[1] Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, PAC that posted Madison Cawthorn video now aims to ‘fire’ Lauren Boebert. Given the impact this group had on Madison Cawthorn (detailed hereand here, this may merit a mention here in the days to come. ValarianB (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We must not touch this until reliable sources do. soibangla (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source already has, as noted above. I'm not in any way suggesting an addition now, just getting us prepped for landing. ValarianB (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muckrakers provided three images of Boebert in their provided exchange. One of those images has already been debunked. It has positively been identified as Melissa Carone, not Boebert. This does not bode well for any other claims made in a text message conversation from an unknown person. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that nobody has reposted the specific allegations that they made, which circulated on Twitter yesterday, on this talk page. Those allegations are serious WP:BLP violations, unless some equally serious evidence is provided to back them up. If one of their photos has already been debunked, that is indeed not good for them. I will be extra quick to sanction anyone who repeats the specifics of that press release on here, unless there is solid proof with it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't noticed that someone had put it IN the article. Smh. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a piece from The Daily Beast taking these rumors to task. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean to sanction somebody? How do you have that authority? What's wrong with attributing the information to American Muckrakers PAC? Wouldn't adding the information be a form of "editing boldly"? Sun Adder (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu is an administrator, which you can see by looking at their user page. They have been vested by the community with the authority to sanction users who violate WP policy and do not seem willing to cease their behavior. In this specific case, these allegations -if not widely reported on by much more prominent sources than the Daily Beast and Yahoo News- represent a particularly egregious BLP violation. Attributing them merely mitigates, but doesn't correct the problem. If I were an admin, I would also sanction anyone who added those to this page, and I say that as someone who believes Boebert to be an egregiously immoral character and entirely unfit for any public office. Happy (Slap me) 21:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me an example of more prominent sources. Sun Adder (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just off the top of my head, there's CNN, The New York Times, Time Magazine, MSNBC, Fox News, The Washington Post, NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, NPR the list goes on... Happy (Slap me) 22:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I almost forgot BBC News, The Associated Press and Reuters. Happy (Slap me) 22:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News just published a story saying Boebert intends to take legal action against American Muckrakers for posting their story. That's one of the prominent sources you listed. By the way, is there a list of agreed upon prominent sources on Wikipedia that I can refer to? If not, how is this determined? Here's the link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/lauren-boebert-taking-legal-action-212358738.html Sun Adder (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Adder, the fact that she is suing complicates the story. I'll bring this up at WP:BLP/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment away at WP:BLP/N#Lauren Boebert. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Outdent]

I posted this at the BLP noticeboard, but will repeat it here: We can, in my opinion, include the content at this point because of a Mother Jones article, who are WP:GREL. From that article: “The political action committee that helped bring down Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) has released a series of salacious and likely false accusations against Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.)”. I would word it like this:

Accusations about Boebert's personal life were released by a political action committee and widely spread on social media. Those accusations appear to be completely false.

However, I will not add anything until we build up consensus. Not for something this close to the WP:BLP third rail. Samboy (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over at WP:BLP/N#Lauren Boebert, consensus is not to add these claims yet. Samboy (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some blatant editorializing from the article, deleting "false" from "Boebert supports Trump's false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him". User:HappyMcSlappy reverted it with the edit summary, "'false' is a factual statement, not an editorial one". Without detailing the Hunter Biden laptop coverup and the dirty shadow campaign, let us just say calling Trump's claims categorically and unequivocally "false" is at best unencyclopedic, and this sort of persuasive writing is discouraged at MOS:EDITORIAL and WP:NPOV. Moreover, Boebert doesn't feel it's "false", and the article is about her. Imagine writing "Pope Francis supports Christianity's false claims that Jesus rose from the dead". The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to Trump's claims of voter fraud as "false" is not editorializing. It is presented by every reliable source that has analyzed them. I do not think that I need to actually share these citations with you here, do I? Whether she believes them to be true or not does not make them not false. Also Hunter Biden has nothing to do with this, why bring him up at all? (Anyway, lol at calling it a "coverup".) And Jesus? Really? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reverting of your deleted text was correct, and I would have done so myself. ValarianB (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ValarianB: What policy or consensus would guide you to do this? I've provided one which seems to discourage it. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you provided does not discourage the existing wording, it discourages the use of editorial wordings. For example, if the passage had read "Trump's heinous claims that...", then removing the word "heinous" would have been supported by that link. But the word "false" is a statement of fact, not an opinion. As for policies that support its inclusion, see WP:ASSERT. Happy (Slap me) 19:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessary on a BLP, and in this instance, it appears vexatious; Wikipedia should not engage in making people look stupid. It would be like going to the Nancy Pelosi article (and 100 others) and adding "She [falsely] added that Republicans were engaged in a 'cover-up campaign' to protect Trump: 'House Republicans' pattern of obstruction and cover-up to hide the truth about the Trump-Russia scandal'." The Russia scandal was fabricated, and many Democrats spread the lie. There are many reliable sources to support this. But it would be unencyclopedic to bias so many BLPs with this sort of tabloid journalism, just as it is tabloid journalism to add "falsely" in front of what she believes. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't engaging in making someone look stupid - that's a result of them saying things themselves that reliable sources pick up on and we summarize. Do you see how this works? It does not appear your interpretation of sources matches reality. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources do not that assert Pelosi lied about a cover-up or the Trump-Russia scandal. If you falsely believe there are, your fitness to edit in this topic area should be scrutinized. ValarianB (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS. ValarianB (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:BLPSTYLE, "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. 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. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking." Again, "let facts alone do the talking". Magnolia677 (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the facts are, simply, that Lauren Boebert made false statements, as supported by reliable sources. The article reflects the reality. ValarianB (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, she didn't make a "false statement". She supports Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. How is that a false statement? It is certainly a discredited belief, but her support isn't false. The sentence stinks. Even if I swept floors at the DNC for a living and edited Wikipedia secretly in my spare time, I would still say the sentence stinks and needs to be rewritten. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or having trouble reading the article at this point. The only mentions of her falsely stating something is in regard to COVID, the rest is about her supporting Trump's false claims but you appear to be all over the place with nonsensical arguments to the point it's disruptive. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of details of Boebert's falsehoods in Lauren Boebert#Certification of 2020 presidential election and Capitol attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Praxidicae, it's the sentence, "Boebert supports Trump's false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him". Magnolia677 (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that is supported by several reliable sources. And my point is in response to your previous comment which is wholly incorrect. And you literally just quoted the article, supported by what I already said, contrary to what you said, proving yourself wrong. Seriously, are you trolling now? This is an insane level of incompetence or WP:IDHT. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For posterity, you stated a few minutes ago: No, she didn't make a "false statement". She supports Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. How is that a false statement?

When the entire article and sentence that you're disputing do not say that she made the false statement - only that she supports Trump's false claim, which as far as I can tell, is adequately supported in the exact quote you gave. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Pope Francis supports Christianity's claim that Jesus rose from the dead. That's true, he does believe that. Should we add "false" before the word "claim"? Of course not, because it's not our job as editors to make the subject of a BLP look stupid, even if what they believe is not true. Then sentence needs to be re-worked. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really not understand the difference between religious lore and patently false statements that are demonstrably untrue? In either case, I believe the answer from you is going to be no and this leads me to further believe you are unfit to opine on, much less edit this article and will be suggesting a topic ban at ANI shortly. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, I have made one edit to this article. One. And you want to go to ANI because I'm saying things on a talk page that makes you uncomfortable? Don't you dare try to intimidate me. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your disruption here is still disruption, regardless of whether it's on a talk page or mainspace (and there are other places where you've caused similar disruption) but your ardent denial of facts when presented with sources and statements that you've made that contradict yourself are great cause for concern and now you've wasted 4 editors time with a ridiculous conversation. So yeah, I think a topic ban is appropriate. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And when you go to ANI and they ask you why you didn't start at WP:BLPN, what are you going to say? That putting forward arguments to remove the word "false" are so outrageous, such an affront to our sensibilities that banning them from further participation is the only solution. Oh please. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would I start anything at BLPN when you are the only person here arguing this? You are literally arguing against demonstrated, printed, black and white facts in reliable sources, while simultaneously claiming the article says something it doesn't and never has. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm not the only one; this IP editor made the same request. Pay attention. I can't make sense of your second point, though I did try to explain this to you once already. Anyway, I'm going to follow HappyMcSlappy's advice below and "eschew further responses"...for now. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the arguments made against my reversion have reached a point past which productive discussion cannot be had. The latest response to me (prior to me edit conflicting in attempting to respond to it) contains multiple falsehoods asserted as facts, and the overall argument seems to be that the facts in this matter are no more important than one editor's opinions. There is nothing to be gained from such an argument, so I will no longer be participating in it, and I would advise others to eschew further responses, as well. Happy (Slap me) 20:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It’s telling and informative that the initial argument made by the OP up above for removing the term compared it to a religious argument asserting the validity of Christianity. This nicely encapsulates the entire philosophical problem at hand with those who support the GOP. They are asserting that facts, data, evidence, and reality itself should be amenable to and conform with our beliefs—which is the exact opposite of how these things work. It is, of course, our beliefs that must change to conform with the facts. This statement is unimaginable to the OP, because they think that their beliefs determine reality rather than the other way around. In other words, it is not a surprise that the religious right is helping to promote false election claims and objecting to the characterization of such claims as false. To directly address the OP, I personally believe we should describe extraordinary religious claims as false, but we don’t because religious claims are given a get out of jail free card by our dominant culture. We even give them tax breaks for making these false claims and allow them to fleece and grift the public. It’s unconscionable and morally repugnant. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the word "False" as it related to Trump's claim of election theft. All of the evidence indicated the claim has merit. 2601:98B:8104:1CA0:D557:DB7E:999A:24B0 (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: In reality, every claim of election theft has been thoroughly debunked. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: Have they debunked the theory that the media's suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop may have thrown the election (or as some on the right may say, "stole the election")? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your obsession with Hunter Biden's laptop is noted, but irrelevant to an article about Lauren Boebert. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]