Talk:Lauren Boebert

Application of labels to living people who do not refer to themselves as such

This article describes Boebert as far-right in the opening few paragraphs, and immediately qualifies that assertion by saying that she rejects the label. When it comes to political beliefs, ought not a persons self-identification take precedence over labels or adjectives that they reject? It seems strange that on wikipedia, a person's self-identification trumps all other evidence over if they are male or female or some other category, e.g. wikipedia will refer to males as "she" if they self-identify as such, however with regards to political ideology, self-identification is disregarded, it would appear especially when the adjective/label carries a certain pejorative connotation.203.206.84.45 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Re "far right" designation: Reliable independent sources prevail here, and Boebert would be classified as a (definitely) non-independent source. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Independent does not mean it is a NPOV. Unless a reliable source can be provided this should be removed. JohnnySalami12 (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

There are a bunch of good sources provided. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Neither of the two sources reliably state she is “Far-right”. The single subjective line stating she has “views further right than Donald Trump” from an unreliable source is insufficient. Unless there is a reliable source provided it should be removed. JohnnySalami12 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

There are many sources given. This one labels her as far-right. Also, you misunderstand NPOV. NPOV is not about the neutrality of the sources, it's about the neutrality of our representation of those sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect. The NPOV Policy states it is represented “fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.”

The cited source in the line shows clear editorial bias from an unreliable source. Likewise you misunderstood the analysis you provided. The study doesn’t define “far right” in an objective data driven manner. They anchor the definition in clusters they subjectively defined as “far right” but fail to objectively define what far right means. The lack of right wing representation in the study undermines the reliability of the label. JohnnySalami12 (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

"Editorial bias" here means Wikipedia editors. We are not in the business of peer reviewing sources' methods (see WP:NOR). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

We’re not here to post inaccurate information either. JSTOR is a reliable source that holds plenty of bias studies that would be rejected as citations. JohnnySalami12 (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Generally we don't cite from JSTOR or EBSCOHost because they are WP:PRIMARY sources. Similarly, we don't cite court documents. We prefer WP:SECONDARY sources. If a publisher has a reputation as being a reliable source, we are usually okay with using them. WP:YESPOV makes clear that RS are allowed to take stances on things. We do not engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE to represent "both sides" if the reliable sources do not do so. We give due weight to perspectives based on how RS do. If multiple RS label Boebert as far-right, we must as well even if we don't agree with the label or think their analyses are flawed. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

you might be confused on what a primary source is. A statistical study is a primary source. Likewise, opinion articles like those cited are not considered a RS. JohnnySalami12 (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not confused on that. JSTOR is mostly original manuscripts in peer-review journals. And those citations are not opinion pieces. They are not published in opinion sections or written by a specific editor/author that is offering their opinion. Please see WP:OP-ED EvergreenFir (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Then why are you citing primary sources? There isn't consistency there.

I understand you have the upper hand here and thus you’re not going to let an edit be made.

For my education I’m curious how you’d view this. Here is a reliable source calling Mamdani a communist. This is a label he has refuted. Based off what I’ve heard here this would make a valid edit? JohnnySalami12 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

It says no such thing. It says: "falsely labeled socialist Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani 'a communist',”. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Please do not change a post after it has received a response as this is misleading. Your new cite is to Fox. See WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. Fox paid $787 million in a settlement for repeatedly telling lies. You accidentally gave an example of why they are not a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

well you weren’t asked I can’t help that you are interrupting yourself in a discussion you’re not involved in.

Politico sourced too. JohnnySalami12 (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. The talk page is open for anyone. Your third source also does not call him a Communist. It says Trump calls him a Communist. He calls lots of people Communists. No reliable source calls him a Communist. What's your point? O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, that is my point. It’s as factual as calling Boebert “far right” which was the original discussion at hand. JohnnySalami12 (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

No it isn't as no reliable source calls him a Communist. Reliable sources do call Boebert far-right. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

You don’t seem understand the concept of a subjective statement. JohnnySalami12 (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd bet a huge proportion of the population can't or don't self-label themselves correctly. But that's just my opinion which is of no value here. As an encyclopedia, we rely on reliable sources. If you disagree with the reliablity of a source, you can go argue that at WP:RSN. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I tend to doubt that an administrator is confused about such. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Look more closely. Citation 2 is actually a group citation of eight sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

They are opinion articles that also fail to objectively define “far right”. I looked through all I could with the paywalls, can you provide a quote from one that fulfills that requirement? JohnnySalami12 (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@JohnnySalami12 They are not opinion articles. There's difference between an op-ed that labels a person and a news story that labels a person. Moreover, it is not as if only one or two reliable sources label Boebert this way. There are 9 of them in the article. Here are a few more:

• https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/01/13/a-tale-of-two-districts
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/21/adam-frisch-lauren-boebert-2024-election-colorado
• https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/boebert-wins-gop-primary-after-switching-colorado-districts
• https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/lauren-boebert-slammed-most-disgusting-075646655.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/12/us/politics/lauren-boebert-colorado-elected.html
• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rep-lauren-boebert-won-only-546-votes-last-year-isnt-changing-ways-rcna94188
• https://www.axios.com/2023/01/18/republican-committee-assignments-greene-gosar

EvergreenFir (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Infobox

People keep reverting the infobox to make it seem like Boebert only has one predecessor, but this is not the case, so I'm bringing this here to finally be settled. I personally believe that the infobox should reflect that she represented two completely different districts, despite continuously serving in the House of Representatives. She moved, and was not redistricted. She has an obvious predecessor in the 3rd district (Scott Tipton), as well as one in the 4th (Greg Lopez), and the 3rd and 4th districts consist of completely different parts of the state. Brobbz (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the only reason that it should be listed the other way is that Florida Representative Mario Diaz-Balart did the same thing (moving districts in a non-redistricting year), but does not have separately listed sections in his infobox. 02rufus02 (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I see. But with Mario Díaz-Balart, it's a bit more complicated, since one term after he moved to the district his brother was vacating, MDB was redistricted to a district that significantly overlapped with the one he represented for the first eight years of his tenure (after all, South Florida isn't a very geographically large region), and both brothers were the first to represent their respective newly-created districts. Even though this might be a bit messy, perhaps a good compromise would to list LDB as MDB's predecessor and keep Boebert's infobox as is? Brobbz (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that there can be some confusion about how there might be a gap in her service or if she lost her seniority because she moved districts. I would prefer it to be clear that she did not lose any seniority by switching districts with at least a clarification in her first paragraph.

It could state that she has been a representative since 2021, while representing the 3rd district from 2021-2025 and the 4th district since 2025. I think that would be clearer while keeping the infobox the same as she does have two different predecessors in each district and unlike redistricted members, she chose to switch districts. Mnchkn1408 (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

It already pretty much says that in the second paragraph, but the wording there could be made clearer. Also seeing "Added a hyperlink for vaping" as the summary of the most recent edit made me chuckle for whatever reason. Brobbz (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted updates for the page and I just added the hyperlink cuz why not? If it was my decision, more things would hyperlink. Mnchkn1408 (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I just think it's funny Brobbz (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Ethnicity

I would love to know more about her ethnicity. She doesn’t look 100% white. I wonder if her views would shift if she knew she had slave or indigenous ancestry Skysong263 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Son's arrest

~2026-43362-68 (talk · contribs) has now twice inserted (outside our WP:BRD guidance) mention of Boebert's son's arrest. Their most recent edit summary is clearly speculative. Her son is an adult, has not been convicted of anything, and I'm not seeing any immediate reason this impacts her biography, job, etc. This seems WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS, borderline WP:BLPCRIME, and generally gossipy. I argue it should be removed. --ZimZalaBim^talk 02:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

As there is the chance she knew of his actions, it does "impact her biography, job, etc."~2026-43362-68 (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:BLP. We generally don't include arrests of non-public figures to their own biographies, and definitely not to the biography of a family member. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Even if not confirmed, there is a chance she knew of his actions, so yes it does impact Boebert.~2026-43362-68 (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

We don't speculate in articles on living people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll keep it off for now. I'll wait until an article is found confirming if she had knowledge of his act.~2026-43362-68 (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I've also raised this for discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Lauren Boebert - son's arrest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Lauren Boebert, not her son. There would need to be more than mere awareness by her of her son's alleged crimes to merit inclusion in this article. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

In addition to being against our policies, I don't see how this improves our understanding of Ms. Boebert. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Given that she has actually responded to the unfolding events, her statement, I believe, is worthy of inclusion.

(For example, see here) 6u66legum6a6y (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Her statement in that People article is a bit of a nothingburger.

Out of curiosity, even at the risk of an WP:OTHERSTUFF violation, I went to check how we handle the criminal violations of the eldest son of a similar politician. The arrests of Track Palin, oldest son of Sarah, are not mentioned on her biography. I agree that we should exclude the arrests of Lauren Boebert's oldest son from hers. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)