Talk:Don Bolduc/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2021

Add under "career":

Public Service Bolduc was a police officer with the Laconia Police Department in 1981 , before enlisting in the US Army. In 2021, recognizing the shortage of police officers, he joined the Hampton, NH police department, and on November 19, 2021, graduated with the 281st class of the NH Part-time Police Academy.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Don't use Facebook as a source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

References

quote in lead

Wallyfromdilbert and Marquardtika: What is the rationale for excluding his quote from the lead?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_C._Bolduc&diff=1056504635&oldid=1056499051

soibangla (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not "his quote", for one. It is selected text from an open letter that he signed, along with 123 other former high level military officers. That context was missing from the lede. The Politico source also includes multiple parts of the letter. It's unclear why we would include one portion of the letter over another (for example, the letter also raised questions about "the mental and physical condition of the Commander in Chief" and accuses congressional leaders of "using the U.S. military as political pawns with thousands of troops deployed around the U.S. Capitol Building." Moreover, having any of this in the lede is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. We have one source discussing this (from May 2021). Given the length and breadth of this article, there is no way that including text from an open letter he signed in the article's short lede is DUE. We don't ignore core policies just because someone becomes a political candidate. Marquardtika (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, it's not his quote, my bad, but otherwise I disagree. I might even say your argument suggests the sentence should be expanded. soibangla (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If you want to expand coverage of the letter in the body of the article, go ahead (although this recent edit actually removed the only quote from the letter that was in the article's body). But the lede should reflect the body, so it doesn't make any sense to give more weight to something in the lede than you do in the body. Marquardtika (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

So if we elaborate in the body, you'd be okay with that part in the lead? soibangla (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't yet know what "that part" is, so I can't answer that. What I'm saying is that it's always best to start with the body, and then the lede should take care of itself as a reflection of the body, per MOS:LEAD. Marquardtika (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

"that part" you removed soibangla (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Selectively choosing a quote from a single source that could apparently be included in 123 other articles if they existed is definitely not appropriate for the lead. It does not even seem appropriate in the body, as Wikipedia is meant to provide encyclopedic biographies, and not a platform for individual politicians to express their talking points. There are very few contexts when a quote from an article subject is noteworthy enough to their overall biography to merit inclusion in the lead. I also find it strange to ask for reasons why content should be excluded while providing no reasons for why it should be included. Per WP:ONUS, the burden is on those who want to include disputed content to find consensus on the talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I am seeking such consensus right here. soibangla (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is based engaging in a discussion and providing reasons, not merely repeatedly asking others if it content can be included. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

Remove unsourced statement about conspiracy theory endorsement. 2600:1006:B014:B4B:E5C1:D7F5:D63B:385D (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Appears to be sourced lower in the article, 2nd paragraph of Political campaigns and activities Cannolis (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Citation 3 is a political article and not a factual source.

"Bolduc has endorsed the false conspiracy theory that the 2020 presidential election was rigged to favor Joe Biden." this line is unnecessary, should be removed or rewritten and placed elsewhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:CB80:9C50:89DC:4F33:E64:B42B (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove political news media as a source. The “big lie” has not been litigated yet and thusly should be removed. Please cite scholarly articles. 47.198.232.184 (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The Big Lie!

I read the bio it should not be political with false facts saying the election is a conspiracy theory ! And why is his medical condition in this TBI and PTSD? I know why but can you answer the question? Thank you for your time Mam or Sir! 2601:18D:8700:EB40:D4EC:A860:F3D3:9FCB (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022

Change "far right" to republican or conservative 50.231.14.14 (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Add more information

The header solely says he has endorsed the Joe Biden conspiracy theory. Which should be there, but why the hell isn’t the rest of his career? Brig. gen with five bronze stars should be somewhat covered in the header, no? This stinks of political bias. 50.227.112.186 (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It's there because it's topical. The only reason anyone reads the article is because of Bolduc's political ambitions; otherwise the article probably wouldn't even exist. You're welcome to add more career information to the body of the article. Doremo (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022 (2)

The opening of this entry is bias and subjective. It's clear that the editors involved disagree with Gen. Bolduc's opinions. This is clearly intended to influence voters which is not consistent with Wikipedia's mission. 97.89.247.98 (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent removal of sourced material

I happened to drop by this page and note that this removal removed some sourced descriptions from RS of Donald C. Bolduc as a far-right GOP candidate. What is the rationale to remove it? Just the same invalid contentious label argument? WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:LABEL makes a clear exception for reliable sources widely describing the subject. Andre🚐 03:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

See my discussion below. Springee (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with the edit you made subsequent to this message, adding it as an attributed statement in the body, to bring it in line with the polices linked above. I still think there might be a reasonable consensus that it can be a Wikivoice label and not an attributed claim if enough sources say it and insufficient sources rebutting, but that can be discussed below. Andre🚐 18:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2022

Please change the the Political Campaigns and Activities section from its current text: "On September 14, Bolduc won the Republican primary election after his opponent, Chuck Morse, dropped out of the race." to "On September 14, Bolduc won the Republican primary election after his opponent, Chuck Morse, conceded defeat."

"Conceded defeat" reflects the source and is less confusing given that dropping out also refers to candidates suspending their campaigns before election day. 141.161.133.237 (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Now to figure out the edit request template.... Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

My bad! Happy Friday. 141.161.133.237 (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Spell check

"Boldic continued to promote the false claim..." 131.93.8.171 (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you; corrected. Doremo (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2022

Remove "rejoice" comment in the abortion section, as the claim is being made by his opponent that he said that, unless there is a sourced link confirming he said it. 108.49.245.120 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I added another source to address your concern. The ad refers to a June event with the Government Integrity Project where Bolduc said of the Supreme Court, "We got some pretty good decisions out of them, one of them today, why don’t we just rejoice that one right now, Roe v. Wade," according to audio of the event.[1] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

"false and disproven conspiracy theory"

Horrible framing. How can you disprove a negative? How do you know that someone you think did not happen might not have happen? 93.206.57.173 (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

More than 60 judges reviewed Trump's claims of a rigged election, and all of them said the claims were without merit, including judges who were appointed by Trump. Trump himself told the Justice Department he had no proof, but they should just allege fraud in the election, then leave the rest to him and his Republican allies in Congress. Giuliani told Rusty Bowers that Trump had theories, but no proof. At some point, Trump supporters are going to need to acknowledge reality. Billmckern (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

you mean just like left-wingers who still question George W Bush valid win in 2000 by claiming without proof and by engaging in conspiracy theories that Al Gore has won or Stacey Abrams from Georgia who still thinks that she has won the gubernatorial contest in 2018??

And the fact that you dont get your way in court does not indicate that your claim did not happen. The left-wing media cartell intervened in the 2020 election by not covering the legitimate Hunter Biden laptop story. 93.206.50.192 (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia treats Hitler and far left differently

The lede says this man is far right and the last section says he falsely claimed something.

I don't know who this man is, don't really care, except he is in the news. Neither the AOC article says she is far left (citation https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/12/aoc-ocasio-corteznew-york-city-394021 ) nor does the Wikipedia article on Hitler says he's far right.

It would be more accurate to remove these and just say "Bolduc is a bad man" according to some. Alternatively, leave out "far right" and let people just read about him. 18:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC) CandyStalnak (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If you have issues with other articles, go take it up on their respective talk pages. This isn't the forum for debate about them, and we don't write our articles based off other articles. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It says Hitler is a Nazi, baby. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

And what do you think the "S" in NSDAP stands for???

SOCIALIST 93.206.50.192 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)