Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2021

I am requesting that the partisan derisive opinions that this subject is a conspiracy theorist and Far-right be removed. It is the contributor's opinion and not a fact. one should not use these pages as or not you agree or disagree with her politics one should not be permitted to use these pages as a battlefield! It is absolutely unfair and mean-spirited. It must be changed. DonnaLK (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC) DonnaLK (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see all the talk page comments about this above.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

Remove that she is a conspiracy theorist that is false information. 2603:9000:5A00:7654:C544:D637:AB33:5E41 (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Many reliable sources call Greene a conspiracy theorist, and no reliable sources refute that assertion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Please hover your mouse over footnote #3 in the first sentence. soibangla (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

You need to give your reasons for top lining far right conspiracy in her description. You have not done the same with AOC or any other far left leaning politicians. Be neutral and stop showing your coward bias 2603:6010:2602:0:A1C0:6CFE:1E2D:FDF7 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

See prior discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

If you are aware of any reliable sources that call Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a conspiracy theorist, then please bring them up at the talk page for that article. This article summarizes what reliable sources say about Greene. That's how Wikipedia works. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure: every reputable sources says so.

Thanks for stopping by. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

Please change reference 2 (Politico), which comes at the start of the article just after the initials MTG, so that it uses the parameter 'work' rather than 'publisher'. Doing this will mean that the website Politico will be displayed correctly with italics, consistent with other references LicentiaA (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Cool, I didn't know "work" did that soibangla (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Biased defamatory first line

"Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974) is an American politician, businesswoman, and far-right[2] conspiracy theorist[3] [...]."

The page is starting with a lie in the first sentence. She is not far-right. Marjorie Taylor Greene has never suggested nor stated she is far-right, and nobody on her political side says she is far-right. The only sources are opinion pieces making defamatory accusations to attack her, or just straight up quoting "Marjorie Taylor Greene has supported this far-right conspiracy theory" as one of the sources for why she is far-right. This is clear and obvious bias. If we used this to become the base of fact, then we should add dementia to Joe Biden's page because right-wing media says that he has dementia. Must be true if the opposing side says so, correct? Stop your biased trash. Wikipedia is meant to be an unbiased place where facts are valued more than opinion, but someone wrote as if opinions of her opposition matters more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadFacts (talk • contribs) 19:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

ChadFacts, it's bias to say she's a "far right conspiracy theorist" because reliable sources have described her as supporting far-right conspiracy theories? Am I understanding your point correctly? We reflect what reliable sources cover. No reliable sources say Joe Biden has dementia. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You say it is a reliable source that a Democratic congresswoman is being defamatory towards Marjorie Taylor Greene? That's the first source. She said it, so that must mean she is far-right. Second source: only says far-right in the title and doesn't even state in the piece that Marjorie Taylor Greene is far-right nor does it explain why it uses far-right in the title. Third source doesn't mention Marjorie Taylor Greene, and the only mention of far-right is in the subtitle as an eye catcher and in AOC who plainly isn't a reliable source, nor does her statement of far-right target Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically in the article. The fourth doesn't even link to the article, you might want to fix that should you plan on continuing to platform baseless defamation. Having found the article, it does not state why she is far-right. It just states that she is. It also doesn't state whether the piece is an opinion or analysis, but it does state opinions within it which leads me to suspect it is an opinion piece. And the fifth one, I don't know anything about that situation, so I can't comment on it. But I did explain why in my view 4/5 of the sources are entirely invalid for either the reason of simply not being unbiased/non-opinion or for not even stating that she is far-right at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadFacts (talk • contribs) 20:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, the use of "far-right" is by the news agencies, not the lawmakers mentioned in the story. —C.Fred (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

C.Fred, that's even worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadFacts (talk • contribs) 21:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Worse for Greene's image, not for reliable sourcing. —C.Fred (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

C.Fred, worse for both Greene's image, and for reliable sourcing in fact. Because you're suggesting they're crossing the territory from simply quoting politicians to making opinions without backing them. And then Wikipedia editors use those opinions citing them as reliable sources, which couldn't be further from the truth. That's one of the issues with Wikipedia. You use reliable sources from A) sources that aren't reliable B) opinions which also falls into the first. I can't imagine a world where we see opinions from journalists as reliable sources for an unbiased source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadFacts (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Far from it. I'm suggesting that the newspapers and other media sources did their due diligence and are reporting their findings: i.e., she's called far-right because, per the evidence, she is. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

She is, as you said, per the evidence, not. None of these sources quoted ever explain how she is far-right aside from her supporting far-right conspiracy theories. If that were how you become far-right, I'd estimate the entire US population to be half far-left and half far-right. They did not do their due diligence. That's a bold claim, so I'd like to see the evidence of a source compiling reasons and going by the unbiased dictionary definition of far-right to explain how she is far-right. Opinion articles do not count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadFacts (talk • contribs) 22:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If you have issues with The Independent, NBC News, and the Washington Post, WP:RSN is that way. I wish you luck. —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

C.Fred, thank you for proving my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadFacts (talk • contribs) 22:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted) FreeMediaKid! 07:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:soap, this is not a place to discuss the flaws or otherwise of the Republican party, or the Democratic party. If you wish to challenge sources take it to wp:rsn. Nor is this the place to discuss other articles, their talk pages are the place for that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I intended my comment to be about this article, but because I also made it partially about me, I understand why it would be interpreted otherwise. It is a habit I have in which I visit talk pages of political articles, find recurring requests whose suggested edits would make the articles worse, and take the opportunity to openly try to understand why these edit requests keep reappearing, but as I said, I may have gone too far in making the subject about me. I also tend to describe my own ideology as a strategy to make my argument seem legitimate. Admittedly, I have yet to see that working. As far as my editing patterns are concerned, I am not driven by any sort of agenda, other than to call out dirtbags. This does not imply that I look for every silly thing someone has said to imply a false conclusion, which would be uncouth and unexpected, possibly even libelous. Rather, it means exposing a dirtbag's vices and making it their fault. Anyway, I will try not to make my comments about me under the guise of their being about the article subjects as my excuse. I have self-redacted my above comment. FreeMediaKid! 21:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Debate with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

@Calton: I'm confused as to why you reverted the text, you gave about a half sentence. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable story in itself to include in her tenure– also, if you'd like to accuse me of acting trying to turn wp into greene's publicity agency, might i suggest bringing any proof that i have a bias. If anything, the story reflects rather badly on Greene. I saw the story, found reliable sources, and determined the story constitutes inclusion. It seems to be a significant part of her tenure, since the twitter response was covered by The Daily Dot, reliable for internet culture, and The Independent generally reliable (according to WP:RSP). A previous editor included The Hill which is also WP:RSP greenlit, and there's coverage from The Daily Beast– also WP:RSP greenlit. There is significant enough coverage here. What's your issue? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's significant and is backed up by sources. This is the second time @Calton: has reverted an edit about Greene's debate with Ocasio-Cortez, and he still hasn't reasonably justified why. I don't understand why he keeps saying "WP isn't Greene's publicity agency" when all these outlets are basically admonishing Greene. The text written on her article was fairly non-partisan as well. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

has reverted an edit about Greene's debate with Ocasio-Cortez

There is no debate -- none -- except in Greene's imagination.

yes, my mistake. doesn't show non-notability though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

... he still hasn't resonably [sic] justified why.

Wrong. It's not my job to justify anything here: it's YOUR job to justify why this minor publicity stunt to gin up attention deserves mention. Notice of some people gabbing on Twitter is NOT "significant coverage". --Calton | Talk 04:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

We have justified it. We have in-depth coverage from multiple reliable independent sources. Now, it's your turn to show why: a. the coverage does not justify inclusion or b. the coverage is compromised or otherwise unreliable or otherwise ineligible to show verifiability. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Dude, if all these news organizations are writing articles directly about it, it's not really trivial. ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail..." which is what all these sources do. It's not just people "gabbing on Twitter" but Business Insider, The Independent, and multiple other reliable news sources. Also, real mature to point out a typo. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Calton, Tuckerlieberman, and Why? I Ask: That really seems subjective to what you consider important. If "Some people gabbing on twitter" was unimportant, WP:WikiProject Internet culture could probably just stuff itself down the tubes now. We have coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources talking about it. What else do you want? Also, yeah, come on with the typo. We're all on the same team here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I was tagged, so I will chime in. I added a couple sentences on 22 April that may have kicked off this discussion. This article has a section called "Political positions" (of Marjorie Taylor Greene) and it currently lists 7 topics including "Abortion," "Gun rights," etc. There's nothing on the environment or climate change. That is a significant topic, so it is a significant omission from the article, and it would be helpful to know where the representative stands. I added a section called "Green New Deal" because that is an important piece of pending legislation and Greene has emphasized her stance against it. I wrote two sentences: "Greene opposes the climate change legislation known as the 'Green New Deal.' In April 2021, she challenged Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the bill's sponsors, to a debate." I thought this was neutral phrasing. She does oppose the legislation, and the specific way in which she demonstrated her opposition was by challenging the bill's sponsor to a debate. I'm not sure what sounds like "publicity." For the record, my politics do not align with Greene's at all. I certainly don't mean to promote her. I simply think it would be helpful for readers to have some information about her stance on climate change. @Calton: in your opinion, what would be a more neutral way of discussing her environmental positions? Tuckerlieberman (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I was more talking about my addition, but i tagged you here because yours was similarly reverted. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the sourcing provided is totally adequate for inclusion of this content. It remains unclear why it should be excluded in the first place, and PROMO does not seem at all relevant here. I support inclusion. Freelance-frank (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

We do not need to include everything, why is this significant? After all is not this actually her job?Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed her job, as a Congressional lawmaker, to have opinions and take actions on U.S. environmental policy. That is why it is significant when she expresses an opinion on a significant piece of legislation. Since her position on abortion, gun rights, etc. are included, why not her position on U.S. response to climate change? I don't understand why environmental policy is treated differently from every other kind of policy? Tuckerlieberman (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, her opinion, is, not an offer to do her job...Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Based on the consensus of four editors versus two (one is presumed), and inactivity for two days, I'm reverting @Calton's reversion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If consensus changes, I'm happy to entertain another reversion, but as of now, it seems we're good. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus for inclusion, 2 to 4 is not a clear enough consensus. We may need wider input, I suggest an RFC.Slatersteven (talk)

On second thought, agreed. I'll open an RfC. This should be fun, no? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 11:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's done. It's 5:51am and I am so far beyond tired– sorry about the mess. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 12:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of proposed debate with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

RfC withdrawn– consensus seems to be that the coverage found is relatively minor. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 12:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the article contain a section on Greene's repeated unanswered requests for a debate with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 11:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed text:

On April 16, 2021, Greene challenged New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to a debate on the Green New Deal. When Ocasio-Cortez did not respond, Greene released a video on Twitter six days later saying that "If she chickens out, then she shows exactly who she really is, a scared little girl that is pretty stupid and doesn’t know anything about the economy or economics". Greene posted another tweet later that day claiming that Ocasio-Cortez had agreed to a debate since she had read "all 14 pages" of the Green New Deal. The tweet included a picture of the two talking, with The Independent describing Ocasio-Cortez's face as "somewhat puzzled-looking". The tweet was mocked on social media, with political commentators, journalists, and others joking that Greene had apparently not read the Green New Deal before, despite criticizing it frequently, and that Greene had made a deal of reading all 14 pages of the document. Greene tweeted the next day that she had read the bill, calling it a "Communists manifesto".

• No. Without committee memberships, Greene has virtually no standing in Congress, and little effect on the legislative process. This is political theater, a news blip that is not a noteworthy event in MTGs life or political career, such as it is. I'd be fine with an "Environment" section under Political positions that contains a cited opposition to the green New Deal, as long as it is free of faux-debate nonsense. ValarianB (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• No. This is the same problem we run into with Alex Jones -- too many examples to list. If we included every incident where Greene performed a bit of political theater and a few sites covered it the article would be huge. We need to limit ourselves to those particular antics that get the most coverage in mainstream sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are some of her tweets appearing here?Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

part of the proposed text. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 13:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citations

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

"Far right conspiracy theorist" is incorrect and needs to be updated (removed). There is no proof, and accusations should not be tolerated on wikipedia. 24.234.211.117 (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The sources in the article support this. See also the FAQ. —C.Fred (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2021

Remove the following as this has no citation or fact to support the claim:

and far-right 68.111.193.80 (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please hover your mouse pointer over footnote #3. soibangla (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

She is not far right conspiracy theorist. 2600:1702:2760:A500:99BF:2587:1A6D:107A (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Try reading the #FAQ. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

Is there a consensus on when it is appropriate to refer to someone as a conspiracy theorist, or simply as someone who has promoted conspiracy theories? One can make a fair argument that MTG is at the same level in this regard as President Trump but his article does not refer to him as a conspiracy theorist, but simply as someone who has promoted conspiracy theories. So where is the line? I think there is less debate over the fact that it does make sense that the Alex Jones article refers to him as a conspiracy theorist.

I would as such propose the change of the article's first paragraph to:

"Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974) is a far-right American politician and businesswoman serving as the U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district. A member of the Republican Party and a staunch supporter of Donald Trump who has promoted conspiracy theories, Greene was elected to Congress in November 2020 and sworn into office on January 3, 2021."

-- zaiisao ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I raised this argument some while ago but I was overruled on the basis that the sources showed that she was a theorist. I don't think the news articles do show this.The titles of some of them do, but headlines I believe are written by sub-editors rather than the reporters..A theorist is surely someone who invents a theory or develops a theory originally composed by somebody else. I believe in the Theory of Evolution but that does not make me an evolutionary theorist even if I write about Darwin.The theorists are Alfred Wallace, Charles Darwin and (probably) TH Huxley..I support your idea but I think your sentences should be :"Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974) is a far-right American politician and businesswoman serving as the U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district. who has promoted conspiracy theories. She is a member of the Republican Party and a staunch supporter of Donald Trump , Greene was elected to Congress in November 2020 and sworn into office on January 3, 2021." Incidentally I am not a supporter of Green,Trump or the Republican Party. I am a left leaning Englishman living in England with an interest in US politics. Spinney Hill (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

We have discussed this issue at length. and multiple times (see the archive).

conspiracy theorist

noun

UK /kənˈspɪr.ə.si ˌθɪə.rɪst/ US /kənˈspɪr.ə.si ˌθiː.ɚ.ɪst/

someone who believes in a conspiracy theory (= the idea that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people):

So yes she fits that definition.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Wait...what? You mean a creationist is not someone who created the universe, a royalist is not royalty, a satanist is not the devil, and a cultist is not a person who started a cult? Who knew? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Can we lay of the sark?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably not. Pointing out the incorrect definition didn't work the last time. I will, however, try to tone it down on pages you are editing in an attempt to annoy you less. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It does not annoy me, but it makes it harder to say to others "this is not what talk pages are for" if I turn a blind eye when others do it. It's about consistency.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I will ignore the previous four comments because they are unproductive to the conversation. I notice that the topic of whether MTG did or did not buy into conspiracy theories was debated, but I have not seen discussions on whether she should be described as "a far-right politician who has promoted conspiracy theories" versus "a far-right conspiracy theorist." From my view it makes sense that Alex Jones is described as a conspiracy theorist because it is his career to create and propagate conspiracy theories, but people like Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene are best described as politicians who have bought into and promoted conspiracy theorists. -- zaiisao ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

This is hyper-partisan editing that draws discredit on Wikipedia articles about U.S. politics. MTG is notable as a politician not as a conspiracy theorist. We don't say for example that Barack Obama is an African American or black politician or that Nancy Pelosi is an elderly politician. The way we arrange facts presents a narrative and we need to follow what reliable sources do, not provide emphasis in order to discredit subjects. TFD (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The most notable thing about Barack Obama is that he was the first black US president. The most notable thing about Nancy Pelosi is that she is speaker of the house. The most notable thing about Marjorie Taylor Greene is that she is a conspiracy theorist. We don't make these decisions. The sources do. Multiple reliable sources have extensive coverage about Obama being the first black US president and multiple reliable sources have extensive coverage about Marjorie Taylor Greene being a conspiracy theorist. Other things about Obama, such as the fact that he is he able to speak Indonesian fluently, are true, but not what he is known for. Likewise the fact that Nancy Pelosi is 81 years old is not what she is known for. Nor is it unusual; multiple members of congress are older, and the ironically named Don Young is 87.

If you don't like the fact that the most notable thing about Marjorie Taylor Greene is that she is a conspiracy theorist, go complain to CNN,[1] NPR,[2] The New York Times,[3] and MSNBC.[4]

Or you can just listen to Marjorie Taylor Greene's own words...[5] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on the substance, but the words matter. Is Greene any more of a conspiracy than Donald Trump, and if yes, then how so? -- zaiisao ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, while it is true that Trump promoted conspiracy theories (which we already cover at Donald Trump#Promotion of conspiracy theories) that is not what he is best known for, which is his businesses, his TV shows, and his presidency. Marjorie Taylor Greene is best known for being a conspiracy theorist.

Also, While I am no fan of Trump, I challenge you to find anything from him that comes even close to Greene's Jewish Space Lasers:[6][7][8]

The Four Deuces, actually she is far more notable as a conspiracy theorist, being the poster child for the QAnon caucus in Congress. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

"As there are now over 70 people confirmed dead and over 1,000 missing, the fires in CA are a horrific tragedy. I’m praying for all involved! I’m posting this in speculation because there are too many coincidences to ignore, and just putting it out there from some research I’ve done stemming from my curiosity over PG&E stocks, which tanked all week then rallied Thursday night after CA official announced they would not let PG&E fail. I find it very interesting that Roger Kimmel on the board of directors of PG&E is also Vice Chairman of Rothschild Inc, international investment banking firm. I also find interesting the long history of financial contributions that PG&E has made to Jerry Brown over the years and millions spent in lobbying. What a coincidence it must be that Gov Brown signed a bill in Sept 2018, protecting PG&E and allowing PG&E to pass off its cost of fire responsibility to its customers in rate hikes, and through bonds. It also must be just a coincidence that the fires are burning in the same projected areas that the $77 billion Dollar High Speed Rail Project is to be built, which also happens to be Gov Brown’s pet project. And what are the odds that Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum is the contractor to the rail project! Geez with that much money, we could build 3 US southern border walls. Then oddly there are all these people who have said they saw what looked like lasers or blue beams of light causing the fires, and pictures and videos. I don’t know anything about that but I do find it really curious PG&E’s partnership with Solaren on space solar generators starting in 2009. They announced the launch into space in March 2018, and maybe even put them up before that Space solar generators collect the suns energy and then beam it back to Earth to a transmitter to convert to electricity. The idea is clean energy to replace coal and oil. If they are beaming the suns energy back to Earth, I’m sure they wouldn’t ever miss a transmitter receiving station right??!! I mean mistakes are never made when anything new is invented. What would that look like anyway? A laser beam or light beam coming down to Earth I guess. could that cause a fire? Hmmm, I don’t know. I hope not! That wouldn’t look so good for PG&E, Rothschild Inc, Solaren or Jerry Brown who sure does seem fond of PG&E. Good thing for Solaren that Michael Peevey is on their board since he is former President of California Public Utilities Commission, California’s most powerful energy regulatory agency. Great connections right there! Also I will say whoever was able to buy that PG&E stock at the bottom before that announcement was made when stocks rallied sure did well on their investment. I wonder how you get privy to that kind of info? You must have to know somebody right? Seems like there’s a lot of connected people in this crowd. And with these space solar generators, I really hope they have very good aim beaming the suns power down to Earth..." --Marjorie Taylor Greene

--Guy Macon (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Some of this stuff is interesting and some not. Most of it distracts from the subject in hand. I think we need to ask the questions 1) Does Greene think up any of the theories or develope them or does she just repeat what others have witten ? 2) Do the sources show this ? Bear in mind that titles of articles are not necessarily written by the authors and do not necessarily summarise what the articles say. 3) If she merely repeats what others have written does this make her a theorist. ? I think not. The dictionary definition of a theorist is "A theorist is someone who develops an abstract idea or set of ideas about a particular subject in order to explain it." (Collins English Dictionary) Spinney Hill (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC) In other words there is no doubt that she publicises and repeats conspiracy theories. Does this make her a conspiracy theorist bearing that definition in mind?Spinney Hill (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"conspiracy theorist" has a specific definition, which she fits.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you said that Obama is most notable as the first black US president. But we don't say, "Barack Obama is an American politician and black man who served as U.S. president." We don't say that JFK was "an American politician and Roman Catholic who served as U.S. president." We don't even say that Hitler was "a German politician and anti-Semite who served as German dictator." The phrasing would only have neutral tone if MTG had achieved notability as a conspiracy theorist independent of pursuing a political career. For example if David Icke or Alex Jones were elected to office then this type of wording would be justified. We say for example that Trump is "an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president" because he has notability both as a media personality and businessman independent of his notability as president. TFD (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, because being Black is quite normal, whereas believing batshit insane conspiracies about Democrats kidnapping children and Jewish space lasers most certainly is not. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

There have been more conspiracy theorists elected president than blacks and a higher percentage of the U.S. population are conspiracy theorists than are black. Why don't you say something like, MTG is a politician and businesswoman "best known for her promotion of far conspiracy theories?" At least then you are explaining why you are mentioning her conspiracism and it comes across as less partisan. TFD (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's hard to compare her to any other politicians, most have had longer careers than her (even Hitler). Most have had publicity that focuses on a wide range of topics (even Hitler, especially at the time). Most (and I would argue all those who have been mentioned here) have had legislative success or influence (MTG has had none, beyond being booted off communities). Simply put (right now) she is (in effect) more notable for being "the conspiracy theorist congressperson" than for anything else. Now it maybe in a few years this will change, and she will have notable legislative success under her belt, but right now, she is not really notable as a politician, beyond having won. She has had no impact outside of being a...well this is a BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it is time to stop responding to those who refuse to accept what Marjorie Taylor Greene is. As Jonathan Swift pointed out, You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, that's a strawman argument. No one is disputing that MTG is a conspiracist, merely how that should be presented. It's ironic to use an irrational argument when discussing how to describe an irrational person. We don't say Biden is a politician and plagiarist, Bush is a politician and convicted criminal, Trump is a politician and philanthropist, Bill Clinton is a politician and adulterer, etc. You are opening the gates for everyone who has an ax to grind. TFD (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@laterSteven I am interested to hear that you have a special definition for "conspiracy theorist." Could you tell us what it is and where you found it? Spinney Hill (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC).

SlaterSteven wrote 'specific', not 'special'. One specific definition given by Merriam-Webster is "a person who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory" [9]. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Specific or special this is interestingSpinney Hill (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Definition of Conspiracy Theorist by Merriam-Webster:

A person who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory

Definition of Conspiracy Theory by Merriam-Webster:

A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators

Conspiracy theories that Marjorie Taylor Greene has said she believes in:

• Jewish Space Lasers started a California wildfire. The lasers were funded by the Rothschilds and were being used to clear forest for a high-speed rail line.

• Seth Rich's death was a political assassination committed by Democrats, following Rich’s supposed involvement with leaked DNC emails. This was accomplished by President Obama ordering the MS-13 street gang to kill him.

• An "unholy alliance of leftists, capitalists and Zionist supremacists" is plotting to destroy European-based society by "breeding us out of existence in our own homelands."

• Hillary Clinton and former Clinton aide Huma Abedin were videotaped sexually assaulting a child and then ripping off the child's face to wear as a mask in a Satanic blood sacrifice. Clinton then ordered an assassination hit against the police officer who found the footage.

• Billionaire Holocaust survivor George Soros turned over fellow Jews to Nazis, and is a "Nazi himself trying to continue what was not finished."

• It wasn't a plane hijacked by terrorists that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. It was a missile fired by the US government.

• Hillary Clinton and other Democratic Party leaders are running a human-trafficking and pedophilia ring out of a pizzeria in Washington.

• Intelligence services for the nation of Israel killed President John F. Kennedy.

• Greene posted a video encouraging protesters "to flood the Capitol", adding "The only way you get your freedoms back is it's earned with the price of blood."

• Greene has repeatedly indicated support for executing prominent Democratic politicians -- including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry.

• James Alex Fields Jr., who drove his car into a crowd at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, was actually a Democrat on the payroll of George Soros.

• When David Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland shooting, went to DC to advocate for gun control. Greene filmed herself chasing Hogg down the street, calling him a coward and accusing him of being funded by George Soros. She questions whether the Parkland shooting that killed 17 people was a planned event and called Hogg a "paid actor."

• The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a "staged event" and the 2017 Las Vegas massacre was part of a massive conspiracy to enact gun control.

• "Q", the supposed leader of QAnon, is a patriot who has revealed that the secret, Satanist cabal that rules the world is funded by George Soros and the Rothschilds.

• When bombs were sent to Democratic politicians and CNN in October 2018, it was a "false flag" operation staged by Democrats.

• The 2020 presidential election was rigged for President Joe Biden and Donald Trump actually won.

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

In view of the Merriam Webster definition which includes those who believe in the theories I concede defeat on this one. That definition does not exist in the British dictionaries (even as a US variant) which explains my original objection. She clearly believes in the theories (unless she is more devious than anybody thought) so the description of "conspiracy theorist" should remain. Spinney Hill (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC).

• Conspiracy theorist (noun): a person who believes in conspiracy theories. --Oxford Learner's Dictionary
• Conspiracy theorist: someone who believes in a conspiracy theory (the idea that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people) --Cambridge Dictionary

Related: Birth of the conspiracy theory --Guy Macon (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I’d like to contribute two pennies here.

I’m not American and looking from the outside in, I think that the way the lead is presented is inelegant and potentially sets an unwanted precedent in what should be presented as fact when it comes to a polarising issue.

IMO, Wikipedia is a place for all, and a declarative statement of a living person that has the potential to polarise the audience should, at all costs, be avoided where it is possible to do so.

In that vain, I would propose omitting the declarative statement saying she is a far right conspiracy theorist in favour of a sentence that reads along these lines:

Taylor-Greene is known for participating in and promoting far right conspiracy theories…

This seems like a more elegant way to deal with the matter.

gj1 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your re-phrasing. As I mentioned above, the issue is not whether MTG is a conspiracy theorist, but how that should be presented in the article. Bill Clinton is an adulterer. Fellow draft avoiders George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are convicted criminals and accused war criminals. Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and Joe Biden are accused rapists, while Biden is also a plagiarist. How we present this information is governed by weight. MTG is not notable as a conspiracy theorist, but as a congresswoman best known for promoting conspiracy theories. Also, a biased tone is preaching to the choir. While it comforts people who dislike MTG, it alienates readers who recognize the bias and then question the facts in the article. TFD (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this is one of those times where the matter should be decided upon by those with a lesser connection to the subject matter. For reference, I came across this article after I saw her name in the news. She was in my consciousness, but I found it particularly jarring when I read the first paragraph - it seemed very partisan to my less informed eyes.

As such, I propose the following:

Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974), also known by her initials MTG,[2] is an American politician and businesswoman, serving as the U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district.[5] A member of the Republican Party and a staunch supporter of Donald Trump, Greene was elected to Congress in November 2020 and sworn into office on January 3, 2021.

Taylor-Greene is known for participating in and promoting far-right conspiracy theories...

Guy Macon - It is evident to me having read your contributions that you are too close to the subject to make an objective judgement on this topic, and I hope on reflection you agree. From what I can see you seem to be one of the main protagonists of a binary argument which is whether she is or isn't something. It seems most others are interested in the presentation of the information in a more dispassionate way than you are. I don't think anyone disagrees with the content, simply the presentation. gj1 (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no feelings one way or the other about Marjorie Taylor Greene. I am merely supporting content that is supported by the majority of high-quality reliable sources.

Perhaps a person who has made 102 edits might not be the best person to lecture someone who has been here for 15 years and made 58,146 edits on how to edit Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces I have done an audit of 50 members of congress from both parties, with attention paid to particularly divisive figures as well as a number whom I do not know anything about. The lead of this article is inconsistent with all of them. As such, I would support you making the suggested edit (or similar) to bring this lead into line with the leads of other members of congress. gj1 (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

How many of the 50 members of congress were QAnon-supporting conspiracy theorists who believe that California wildfires are started by Jewish Space Lasers? How many were supporters of executing Democrats and FBI agents? How many claimed that the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting was staged? How many claimed that the September 11 attack on the Pentagon was fake? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Brontorex01, that is a nice bit of WP:OR. Meanwhile, Greene is singled out by reliable sources for particular mention for the volume and variety of conspiracist bullshit she has spouted over the years. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

and you are continuing to demonstrate why you are not in a position to make an objective judgement on this topic. I am not suggesting you are wrong, but I am suggesting that you have lost sight of the issue at hand, namely presentation of this fact. gj1 (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, lets put it another way. How many of them have been called conspiracy theorists by RS?Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

We need to stop with the whataboutism. We need to focus on the task at hand. From the sampling I did from other Wikipedia pages (and no this isn't WP:OR - it's a consistency check), none of the leads declaratively states a particular view point. Nobody is labelled a "Radical Socialist" or an "Ultra-Conservative." Other parts of the article go on to state these facts. I am keen for consistency, but I'm also keen on accessibility. Just because sources say something, doesn't mean it needs to be written in a certain way. The consistent approach is 1) Who the congress member is (the area they represent 2) What their beliefs are.

I think this will need to head toward dispute resolution, as one of my fears is that, as written, the declarative statement of her being a conspiracy theorist does nothing to enhance the progress of wikipedia as a carefully written knowledge base.

Its not whataboutism (which is what you are doing, in fact), its policy. We say what RS say. What we do on other pages is irrelevant here, as this is about Taylor Greene and no one else. There may be many reasons why we do not say something on another article. We commone ton what makes someone notable, not just on one aspect of who they are.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The current wording for MTG as a conspiracy theorist, and the sourcing that supports it, is fine as-written. ValarianB (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

We need to stop with the whataboutism. We need to focus on the task at hand. From the sampling I did from other Wikipedia pages (and no this isn't WP:OR - it's a consistency check), none of the leads declaratively states a particular view point. Nobody is labelled a "Radical Socialist" or an "Ultra-Conservative." Other parts of the article go on to state these facts. I am keen for consistency, but I'm also keen on accessibility. Just because sources say something, doesn't mean it needs to be written in a certain way. The consistent approach is 1) Who the congress member is (the area they represent 2) What their beliefs are.

I think this will need to head toward dispute resolution, as one of my fears is that, as written, the declarative statement of her being a conspiracy theorist does nothing to enhance the progress of wikipedia as a carefully written knowledge base. gj1 (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

convenience break

Brontorex01, it's unclear to me how dispute resolution can fix the fact that reliable independent sources describe Greene as a conspiracy theorist. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Lets go for it, it might at least close this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, meh, my tolerance for long drawn-out processes to appease editors with 100 edits is quite low. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You really are a bastion of good faith collaboration aren't you? Why you aren't able to investigate and accept that there is a consistency issue and understand why a difference of opinion is important is beyond me. Slatersteven - meh, my tolerance for dealing with dinosaurs is rather high. Let's get this sorted out. gj1 (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

DR, to deal with a single-purpose account, is not warranted here, the sourcing for leveling MTG what she is far and away known for is crystal-clear. ValarianB (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Posted here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Majorie_Taylor_Greene gj1 (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

ValarianB - no one denies that this is what she is, but to give you an example of why some feel this is important lets take a look at another member of congress Matt Gaetz. His lead is

Matthew Louis Gaetz II (/ˈɡeɪts/ GAYTS; born May 7, 1982) is an American lawyer and politician who has served as the U.S. representative for Florida's 1st congressional district since 2017.

Gaetz is also an alleged Sex Trafficker, something that can be sourced. Are we suggesting that his lead should be edited with that between 'politician' and 'who?' gj1 (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Falling back on WP:OTHERSTUFF is as predictable as it is boring. If you have concerns about Gaetz' article, then it'd be best to raise it over there. ValarianB (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I do think a question worth considering is whether including "is an American politician, businesswoman, and far-right conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence is on the same level as, for example, "and retired Army National Guard lieutenant colonel" or "and businessman". No problem with describing her as a "conspiracy theorist", but the question whether it should be part of the first sentence is legitimate. I'd also ask Brontorex01 aka gj1 to refrain from speculating on who, here, is "too close to the subject to make an objective judgement on this topic". Not your call, not interested in your assessment without actual diffs establishing such closeness. Please stop that. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I saw what hit the dispute resolution board, and came her to make this same comment (at least on the article text) as Sluzzelin. MTG is no question considered a conspiracy theorist in the bulk of RSes, and that is a significant part of her notability, and the lede must mention that facet. But to load it into the first sentence as if it were equally weighted on a neutral basis with her other objective, career aspects (eg a politician and a sitting US Rep) is questionable and creates a major tone problem given that we are to write impartially and disinterested. It is a slanted characterization of her rather than an objective statement about her. There is no requirement that the first sentence must contain why a topic is notable (why we have an article about it on WP), though that aspect of notability better be somewhere in the lede overall and depending on the context, ideally within the first paragraph, but that should not be at the expense of keeping the tone of the article neutral and impartial. WP going out of its way to jump onto the "conspiracy theory" aspect here is inappropriate for a work that is meant to be neutrally-written. That MTG is a conspiracy theorist will clearly be included in the lede, probably leading the current second para, eg "Greene is known as a conspiracy theorist, supporting theories such as Pizzagate and QAnon, ...". (eg no information is lost). (posted 21:03, 18 May 2021 by Masem (---Sluzzelin talk 20:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)))

Sluzzelin, not only is being a far-right conspiracy theorist her principal claim to notability (and the reason she was booted form committee memberships), it's also her brand. That's the distinction from someone like Gaetz, who is primary a troll. MTG is an out and prod Q believer (though she now claims to believe only some of that festival of batshit). Gaetz promotes the Big Lie, but I doubt he sincerely believes a word of it. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

And (as has been said more than once) she is as notable for spreading conspiracy theorist as anything else, in fact she was notable for it during her election (so in fact before she became notable for anything else). In fact, it is very much part of her image, one she fostered and nurtured.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I see your point, Guy and Slatersteven, and of course I did find articles on other conspiracy theorists where the first sentence includes just that. I'm not sure we'd have an article on Greene had she not run for office, but I guess that's neither here nor there. To me, conspiracy theorist is just in another kind of category and register than elected position, profession or occupation, military rank etc. My hesitation to include it in the first sentence has to do with what Masem wrote, but I don't feel strongly about it, and won't be pushing this any further. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, it is fair to say that we probablyt would not have an article on Greene had she not run for office, but we would have an article even if she had lost, because of the volume of coverage of her batshittery and what it says about the GOP. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Rep. Greene’s Combative Behavior Could Spark Ethics Review

From The Associated Press via Snopes:

Rep. Greene’s Combative Behavior Could Spark Ethics Review

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This seems sane and reasonable: Speaker Pelosi wanting Members of Congress to get vaccinated and if not to wear masks is “exactly the type of abuse” as murdering Jews in gas chambers during the Holocaust

Sounds legit to me. If you can't trust someone who says the Jews are starting wildfires with space lasers, who can you trust? The TRUTH is out there!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Sworn in?

Hi folks, I'm an Wikipedia editor who writes articles about Indonesian politician and I usually use the term "inaugurate" to describe the moment someone starts their term of office. I've recently stumbled upon this article and found that this article uses the term "sworn in" instead. Is there a consensus regarding the usage of "sworn in" in either this article or US-wide politician articles? Thank you. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The two are not the same, although in US politics they often happen at the same time.

Definition of inaugurate:

transitive verb

1 : to induct into an office with suitable ceremonies

2a : to dedicate ceremoniously : observe formally the beginning of inaugurate a new school

b : to bring about the beginning of[10]

Definition of swear in

transitive verb

to induct into office by administration of an oath[11]

You can be inducted into an office without being sworn in or taking an oath. For example, some Quakers refuse to swear any oaths for religious reasons. See Testimony of integrity#Oaths and fair-dealing.

So if you are talking about someone starting their term, use "inaugurated". If they start their term with a ceremony, and the ceremony involves swearing an oath, and you are specifically talking about the actual ceremony, use "sworn in". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Ah, thanks for your explanation. This kind of thing is confusing, so I suggest that we should have some kind of a wiki-wide consensus for this.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2021

conspiracy needs come out. this is a political move to discredit her. it may say alleged conspiracy theorist but no facts to make it so ILLREPUTE (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please hover your mouse pointer over footnote #4. soibangla (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2021

Remove “far right conspiracist”. That’s opinion not fact. 2603:8080:8801:63B5:31C2:DF16:2E91:4BA1 (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Please hover your mouse over footnote #4 soibangla (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per the #FAQ. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2021

a pro-police pro-police news website 2607:FEA8:1220:1F95:7116:2A16:8587:BAF9 (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@2607:FEA8:1220:1F95:7116:2A16:8587:BAF9: LET is a fake news website. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]; [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]; "The site’s articles often bear only a passing resemblance to reality."; "The false rumors, especially about antifa, have spread wildly on Facebook and Twitter. One particularly potent piece of misinformation is an article by the website Law Enforcement Today, which cites a single anonymous 'federal law enforcement source' who alleges that the wildfires across the west coast are part of a '‘coordinated and planned’ attack'. The article goes on to state, 'There are current concerns and allegations that many of these people who have started fires may be related to Antifa. However, these allegations have not be [sic] confirmed.'"; "Law Enforcement Today, a website that has published misleading information in the past"; "In January 2020, the website Law Enforcement Today published an article about six officers who had “died in the last 10 days.” The officers listed in this article (the same one posted by Levin) died from a variety of causes, including brain cancer, a heart attack, pneumonia, and car crashes."; "The website “Law Enforcement Today” says “as if things are not bad enough for police officers, with it becoming more common then not that they are considered the enemy, they are now considered demons by Siri, Google and Dictionary.com.'" "The image stems from an article by Law Enforcement Today published on January 30, 2020. The officers listed died from a range of different causes, according to the outlet ( here ). None of the deaths were related to Black Lives Matter protests."; "It was also promoted in a misleading article published by Law Enforcement Today, which had more than 200,000 shares in pro-Trump and Blue Lives Matter groups on Facebook."; "Asked whether LET has an editorial policy that allows writers to publish unconfirmed rumors without attribution, [LET national spokesperson] Reyes responded by suggesting the reporter should try downloading a dating app. He added: 'And yes - we absolutely referenced the rumors that Antifa was involved - and clearly stated that we had been unable to verify that.'"  Not done. The only time I can see that they've been noted in reliable sources as a source of reliable fact is one time when they pointed out that an obviously, laughably fake flier was a hoax. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Mail slot at Ocasio-Cortez's office

Many channels used video of Taylor Green yelling a series of pejoratives through the mail slot at Ocasio-Cortez's office. I think the mail slot reference should stay and either one of the deleted quotes should as well, given all the publicity her actions received. She also removed the video which had been on her own page after it had been widely circulated. Activist (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Activist, regarding the deleted quote part, it wasn't deleted, but rather integrated into prose. To (ironically) quote WP:OVERQUOTE: "Quotations should not substitute for exposition".

Regarding the other two parts you mentioned, as long as there is a reliable source that is cited, then they're fine to be included in that section. Curbon7 (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheTechnician27 (talk · contribs) 00:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Curbon7. I'll be starting this review of Marjorie Taylor Greene with a blank template below, so please don't be taken aback that all of the answers are question marks, and please don't fret if I skip over some while doing other, easier ones first. Right now, I'm just going to go through all of these individually and mark them as I analyze them; if I have any questions, concerns, or ideas, I'll note them. You can keep track of the review's progress here and ask any questions anytime you'd like as well, and if you'd like me to review certain criteria in a specific order, that's fine too. =)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Combining 2c and 2d into one and breaking them up into article sections.

   Lead:

   Early life, education, early career, and activism:

   U.S. House:

   2020 congressional campaign:

   Tenure, committees, and caucuses:

   Political positions:

   Up to COVID-19 mandate comparison:

   Up to foreign policy:

   Controversies:

   Up to false flag claims:

   Up to Camp Fire:

   Responses within and outside Congress:

   Personal life:

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The only aspect I see as missing right now is Greene's opposition to the Green New Deal, but upon reflection, that's more of an FA nitpick. What constitutes major aspects and focus is liable to change, but right now, the article is broad in its coverage without straying from the subject matter.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I know this point on such an inherently controversial article subject will receive the most scrutiny of any of these criteria, so I'm going to assess each principle in WP:VOICE separately as well.

   Avoids stating opinions as facts:

   Avoids stating seriously contested assertions as facts:

   Avoids stating facts as opinions:

   Prefers nonjudgemental language:

   Indicates the relative prominence of opposing views:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Fairly stable edit history; indefinite extended confirmed protection.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Update 1: @Curbon7: The review is going well so far. I could only find one statement that isn't cited whatsoever, which I've marked with a 'citation needed'. I'm a bit swamped with verifying claims, checking grammar, seeing if any major aspects have been missed, etc., so I was hoping you could find a source for this claim or amend it accordingly if you can't. Also, I've gone ahead and passed 6a, as all images used seem to have a solid explanation for being in the public domain. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Update 2: 2b passes, insofar as all citations are appropriately reliable for statements made. Whether all of these statements are attested to in these reliable sources falls under the purview of 2c, which I'll review in conjunction with 2d. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Update 3: 1a, 1b, and 3b pass. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, thank you for such an in-depth and hands-on review! Curbon7 (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: For what it's worth, most of my contributions easily fall outside the scope of a normal GA review, as GA criteria – while stringent – aren't nearly as nitpicky as I am. Only fixing what strictly needs to be fixed for the article to pass is mind-numbingly boring, and I think getting hands-on and fixing minor issues over the course of the review is overall more fun and more beneficial to the article. A corollary to this is that most of the changes I make aren't vital to the GA review, so feel free to undo or modify any changes you think don't work. So far I haven't found any major issues whatsoever, and I should be passing 1a and 2b soon. I'd be surprised if I found any major issues with the prose, spelling, or grammar (I could probably pass 1a right now, but I want to make sure I've nitted every pick), and every source I've seen so far seems reliable enough for the statements they support, including the ones with no consensus for reliability. I'm going to replace one Mediaite source just because better sources exist, but that wouldn't have influenced a pass/fail for 2b. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: I'm going to pass 3b, but I foresee an issue that could arise within the next few years. Given Greene's 2020 campaign – the primary, the runoff, and the general election – is her only electoral history thus far (barring a bit of news about 2022), I think the amount of information the article has on it is solid. However, in the future, assuming e.g. Greene isn't primaried in the 2022 race, some less critical information is going to have to be migrated off to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia § District 14, 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia § District 14, etc. While fine and even preferable now (I think migrating anything right now would detract from the section), the amount of information we currently have seems pretty much unsustainable after a couple more election cycles at most. Regarding 2a, I think the only three major aspects missing right now are information about her 2022 campaigning (e.g. fundraising, who she'll be facing, etc.), her relationship to AOC (especially as it pertains to the Green New Deal), and her thoughts on the January 6 Capitol riot (e.g. that the rioters were actually Antifa, her friendship with Anthony Aguero, her request to be on the January 6th Commission, her call for "justice" for Ashli Babbitt and saying those arrested for rioting are being "abused", etc.) I think her relationship with AOC would just be best as maybe a couple sentences under 'Tenure', but I think it might be appropriate (more research required) to start a brief '2022 congressional campaign' subsection (a subsection whose main article should eventually be 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia § District 14, whenever that gets created). Likewise, it definitely seems to me like a subsection on the Capitol riot would be appropriate under 'Political positions' or 'Controversies' (more research required to determine which, but likely the latter given her attempt to join the Jan. 6th Commission). I'm also going to pass 1a and 1b, as I believe I got any issues with 1a, and guidelines from the Manual of Style for layout, word choice, and lead are met. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, Sounds good and yeah any future issues will certainly be dealt with when they eventually come up. Curbon7 (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Glad to hear it. I'm going to break 2c and 2d into chunks to give you and myself some meaningful feeling of progress; I'll start with the lead and work from there. Assuming each citation takes me about a minute, it should take a smidge under 5 hours total. That only leaves 3a, so if you want to hop on that while you have some free time, the review could be finished up by tomorrow. I'll let you know when 2c and 2d are finished, but you can check up here to check on their (probably non-linear) progress. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: I'm going to finish up 2b and 2c tonight. I'm working on the second section set forth above, but I found a statement which failed verification. I marked it with 'citation needed'. If you'd be able to find a reliable source substantiating that, it'd be much appreciated. If you look and aren't able to find anything, I'll see what I can dig up, since it seems plausible. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, alright. I'm also adding the links you provided a few paragraphs up. Curbon7 (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: In that case, I actually went out and found a source. Our statement actually seems to have been false (can't say for sure; maybe she sold her ownership of it or something?), insofar as Travis Mayer still owns the gym. Greene just left the business. So no worries about that; I'll add it in. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: That wasn't me trying to relegate you to menial work or anything. I genuinely had no idea I would find the relevant information so quickly; I thought I'd be digging through local news sources. I probably should've checked more thoroughly first; sorry about that. Haha TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, it's ok! . It's actually some pretty important info we left out (her vote against Jan 6 Commission). We're getting to the point in the tenure section where we may need to split off a sub-section somewhere just for the Capitol stuff and aftermath. Curbon7 (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Well, I just ran into an issue. That Vimeo citation under 'Personal life' was actually to a video that's been dead since a few months ago. Even though the information in the video isn't crucial to the article, that does mean we probably have to pull that information out and just leave it on the talk page for someone to work on later, as nothing we quoted is listed in the Politico Magazine source that also cites the baptism video. It's possible someone somewhere had the foresight to archive it, but that's probably the only hope of keeping this information short of finding those exact quotes elsewhere in an article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Paging Critical Chris in the vague, unlikely hope that they have an archive of the video. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: I'm going to be finishing up the review today, but first, I'm apparently going to expand the 'LGBT rights' subsection, as it appears there's a fair bit left to cover. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: A bit of an update: I'm a bit stuck on 2c for her 2020 campaign right now due to ostensible OR by Critical Chris. Although true, little bits and pieces aren't verified in sources provided, so I'm having to either find new ones to supplement or (I haven't done this yet, but may have to) simply remove the unverified material. Sorry this review is taking so long, but I'm sure you understand. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, It's fine! Take as much time as you need Curbon7 (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Actually, I think this is going to be one of those ones where I need your input. There's an intractable problem with OR in the paragraph about the February 29 rally: the rally where she posed with Doles was the same February 29 event (as shown by e.g. the image being posted March 1 on Doles' VK.com), but it's just not reflected one way or the other in any reliable sources I could find through extensive searching. Therefore, we can't imply that it was the same rally, but it would be false of us to suggest it was a different rally. Unless an RS can be found explicitly stating that these two are the same, the paragraph is unsustainable. I have an idea to salvage the material from the paragraph, and I'd like for you to take a look once I publish the edit, as I recognize this is a bit of an ad hoc solution to this problem. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Before I use plan B (breaking up and reworking the paragraph), I'd like for you, as another experienced editor, to take a look at the solution I implemented just now. I believe using Chester Doles as the primary source for his taking the picture with Greene on February 29 is easily enough to make such a tame statement verifiable, but I wanted to see what you think. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, I slightly reworded the paragraph to make way for some punctuation, but otherwise it was fine. I don't think we should link to Doles' posts though, since that would be primary sourcing, right? Curbon7 (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: The primary source is necessary because no secondary RS I can find explicitly states the photo was taken at the; however, Doles' social media (known to be legitimate, as outlets such as the AP and the AJC have referenced Doles' VK account) posted the photo after they "hit all" the pro-Trump rallies in northern Georgia. That said, it could technically be a mild form of synthesis , so I do have a plan B. It'd be a bit of a shame, as we'd be "missing" the exact date of when it happened and where, but I recognize that sometimes there's just nothing you can do about this sort of thing. Also, I appreciate the punctuation cleanup, as the sentence ran on a bit too long. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but there's a big issue with 2b (all inline citations are from reliable sources) - according to WP:RSP, 2013-onwards Newsweek, Business Insider, Washington Examiner, Media Matters for America, Fox News (politics), Salon, Mediaite are all yellow-rated - marginally reliable or no consensus for reliability. There's eight uses of 2013-onwards Newsweek, five uses of Business Insider, five uses of Washington Examiner, four uses of MMFA, two uses of Fox News, one use of Salon, and one use of Mediaite. There's also one use of Truthout, a non-profit organization. There's two uses of Law Enforcement Today. There's one use of a WaPo op-ed being used for facts (Katie Hopkins). Disclosure - I'm #10 for edits to and authorship for this article. starship.paint (exalt) 12:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Notify Curbon7 / TheTechnician27. starship.paint (exalt) 14:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Starship.paint. I'm aware of what WP:RSP says, and besides one which I admittedly missed (Mediaite), I've vetted all of these articles to make sure they comply with reliability guidelines. The fact of the matter is – and RSP signals this right out the gate – that context matters, and a yellow rating on RSP does not blacklist such sources from being cited as reliable. These sources have not been considered by the community to be generally unreliable, let alone deprecated. I was originally going to do this after I passed (or, I suppose, failed, though in my opinion that seems unlikely at this point) the article, but I'll address all of these individually now instead. Sorry for the wall of text, but I have given these a fair bit of thought.

• Mediaite: I was actually unaware that a Mediaite source was in the article, as I must have missed it – a genuine oversight on my part. I previously removed a Mediaite source for exactly this reason, and I've now removed and replaced this one as well, as the article very clearly blurs an opinion piece with a news article.

• Newsweek: I've given these all a once-over just to be sure I haven't missed anything (in one case, I did, but it's not the article's fault). I'll address all of them here.

• The first (145 by Ewan Palmer, 02/05/21) is one that I know to be perfectly acceptable, as it's simply a transcript of a publicly available speech of hers.

• The second (283 by Jason Murdock, 01/18/21) is simply used for a direct quotation of Greene's.

• The third (21 by Jeffery Maritn, 01/13/21) is simply used to state that Greene filed articles of impeachment against Biden. It directly embeds a tweet of hers stating: "On January 21, 2021, I'll be filing Articles of Impeachment against Joe Biden for abuse of power." Therefore, again, no reason to believe it's unreliable for this statement.

• The fourth (138 by Tom Batchelor, 09/21/20) is again used for another direct quotation and nothing else.

• Upon further reading, the fifth (163 by Ewan Palmer, 06/05/21) actually doesn't technically say what we say it does. We state: "In the letter, she also called COVID-19 a manufactured bioweapon intentionally released by China." However, the article does not mention that the bio-weapon claim was actually in the letter (and the letter itself never technically does claim this, instead choosing to "JAQ" and very heavily insinuate that COVID-19 is a bioweapon). I'm going to go ahead and fix this, so I'm glad I re-read just to check. Nevertheless, I believe there's no issue with using the source itself for a direct quotation.

• The sixth (171 by James Crump, 05/21/21) paraphrases another direct quotation. The current sentence reads: "After Greene was fined a second time for $2500, she referred to Pelosi as "Speaker Maskhole" in a tweet." However, "After Greene stated she was fined a second time for $2500, she referred to Pelosi as "Speaker Maskhole" in a tweet." may be more appropriate, as it's merely a quotation of Greene, not a reliable source independently saying she was indeed fined that much.

• The seventh (253 by David Brennan, 02/05/21) is merely about what the CoP and the ADL directly stated.

• The eighth (254 by Jack Dutton, 01/29/21) is again just us citing an aggregation of quotations.

In essence, none of these are problematic (except the bio-weapon one, but that's our fault, not the fault of the article), as they're merely referencing direct quotations of public statements. Note that, per RSP, "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis".

• Fox News: Neither of these uses are problematic or even questionable whatsoever. Our first use of the first article is for a direct quotation from Greene; the second use of the first article is for a direct quotation from Anthony Fauci responding to Greene. The only use of the second article is a statement of fact about what Greene said in a Fox News interview.

• WaPo op-ed: The WaPo op-ed can be replaced with from The London Economic. Likewise, I could, in conjunction with the Economic, cite the original video on Twitter which was cited by a NYT op-ed. The reason I opted not to replace it with the Economic is because half the article consisted of "Here are random people's responses to this video on Twitter." Furthermore, looking at the context, the WaPo source is reliable for an exact quotation. Nevertheless, I can go ahead and change it to the Economic after this – not for reliability reasons, but upon reflection, both because access to the WaPo is limited and because the paragraph we're actually citing is hidden deep in the op-ed. I believe this will be a lateral change in reliability while making it more accessible and less tedious. Update: This is actually apparently not feasible, as links to the Economic are apparently blacklisted. However, I have a better source in mind which I'll replace the WaPo citation with, again for the reasons listed above in favor of the Economic.

• Business Insider: A very recent RfC returned that: "There is currently no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider. The only thing that users seem to be somewhat in agreement on is the site's use of clickbait headlines, but other than that, opinions seem to vary too drastically to point to one specific consensus." None of the Insider articles that we cite feature said clickbait, and I (having frequently dealt with the source while editing and having read the entire RfC) view the source as roughly equivalent in reliability to The Independent. Articles on modern US politics reference the source quite regularly, and I see no issue with using it unless 1) the claim is extremely contentious and/or 2) other, more reliable sources (e.g. misc. agencies, the NYT, etc.) contradict it. Having personally read all of the ones this article cites, I have no reason to believe that any of the article's uses of the Insider are problematic.

• Media Matters: All of our uses of Media Matters are unambiguously attributed. Furthermore, all Media Matters sources that are used in the article have been cited as reliable sources of fact by e.g. Vice, The Washington Post, Vox, and BuzzFeed News(as an example, Vice, the WaPo, and Vox all cite this reporting by MMfA). None of these uses, therefore, are problematic, as all of the articles we've cited from them are known reliable sources of fact.

• Washington Examiner: Should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims, but the fact is that we do not use it to substantiate any exceptional claims. I heavily considered the one about Greene's letter to the Biden administration, solely because part of the title, "New demand to probe Fauci's ties to Wuhan lab, Marjorie Taylor Greene wants him fired", ostensibly implies an unproven conspiracy theory about Fauci. However, what it says about Greene and the letter (i.e. the part that our article refers to) is entirely unexceptional, and thus I don't see an issue with using it. The rest of the four Examiner citations are about direct quotations from Greene herself and, in one case, about how she visited D.C. in 2017 to protest a gun control compromise, also unexceptional.

• Salon: What we're citing from the Salon article is a direct quotation from John Cowan, and Salon links directly to a video of the GPB debate published by Cowan. The rest of the article persistently links to reliable sources. Once again, there's no good reason to treat the article as unreliable, and furthermore, there's no need to attribute it to Salon, as we're citing a quotation rightfully attributed to Cowan. Citing the video directly would technically satisfy this as well, but linking to videos is a recipe for eventually losing the source to the sands of time, as text is far easier to preserve.

• Truthout: The relevant portion of the Truthout article cites a press release by PFAW when they state that PFAW has called for Greene's removal. However, even though the source is reliable, verifiability doesn't always imply inclusion, and I think 'Responses outside Congress' should be reserved for especially notable responses, lest it become too diluted like one of the old 'In popular culture' sections. PFAW is a notable organization, but the only mention of their press release is two short paragraphs in one article, and it's not an especially big deal that such an organization would call for her removal, so I think the passage should simply be removed (I'd originally moved it there from a far less relevant section, and it doesn't really fit anywhere else).

• Law Enforcement Today: These are both used as primary sources. The first source is a list of articles Greene has written for LET, and the second source – one of her articles – is unambiguously credited to Greene herself. Said article has been cited by FactCheck.org as verifiably written by Greene: "After posting the petition, she promoted it through a story on a website called Law Enforcement Today, which is run by former police officers." LET would be deprecated via the snowball clause in an RfC (if anyone actually considered it important enough for one), but as a strictly primary source for minimally contentious claims (e.g. "Greene wrote 27 articles beginning in January 2018"), it's entirely acceptable. See: WP:ABOUTSELF.

Context matters when assessing reliability, and – except where I missed the Mediaite citation – I believe I've adequately done so. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: - thank you for the detailed reply. WP:V is not the only policy in play here. WP:DUE also applies. If something can only be sourced to a sketchy source, with no reliable sources attached, how is it important enough to include when reliable sources have apparently ignored it? We can't possibly put every tweet, every press release, every comment, every media article about her, every primary opponent's comment in here. It can be indisputable that she said something and yet it is not important enough for us to include. Using reliable sources is how we use discretion. See below. starship.paint (exalt) 05:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• During the same debate, Cowan questioned Greene's acceptance of Paycheck Protection Program money despite her opposition to congressional appropriations of relief funds during the pandemic. (only sourced to Salon and YouTube)
• In an August 2020 interview with Fox News, she indicated her support for defunding Planned Parenthood (only sourced to Fox News)
• She said she intended to continue "pulling the [Republican Party] to the right." (only sourced to Fox News)
• In 2017, Greene visited Washington, D.C. to protest against a Republican gun control compromise (only sourced to Washington Examiner)
• On June 17, 2021, Greene introduced a bill to abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (only sourced to Washington Examiner and press release)
• On June 4, 2021, Greene sent Biden a letter demanding an investigation into Fauci, alleging an association with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and a "potential involvement in the cover up" of the lab leak hypothesis.[161][162] In the letter, she also called COVID-19 a manufactured bioweapon intentionally released by China.[163] (only sourced to Washington Examiner, tweet and Newsweek)
• as the "Hate All Police Bill" and a "defund-the-police bill", (only sourced to Washington Examiner and press release)
• a Cook Partisan Voting Index of R+27, it is the 10th-most Republican district in the nation (only sourced to Business Insider)
• Greene filed articles of impeachment against Joe Biden, alleging abuse of power on January 21, 2021, the day after Biden's inauguration (only sourced to Newsweek)
• She stated: "The government will never tell me how many guns I can own, and how many bullets I am allowed to fire if someone were to attack me or my kids. (only sourced to Newsweek)
• After Greene was fined a second time for $2500, she referred to Pelosi as "Speaker Maskhole" in a tweet (only sourced to Newsweek)
• Groups such as the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Anti-Defamation League criticized Greene's promotion of conspiracy theories tinged with antisemitic overtones[253] and commentators, elected officials, and others ridiculed it (only sourced to Newsweek)
• Upon returning to Twitter the next day, she criticized the company: "Contrary to how highly you think of yourself and your moral platitude, you are not the judge of humanity. God is. (only sourced to Newsweek)

See above. We should replace with reliable sources. If we cannot, it is WP:UNDUE, in my opinion. starship.paint (exalt) 05:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE applies as follows: "mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.". I've shown how each of the articles is reliable for the claim asserted, and none of these statements are too extensive proportionate to their weight in said reliable sources (with one exception which I'm going to fix; see below); therefore, this information constitutes due weight. I don't feel like wikilawyering back and forth about these (though I will wikilawyer a little and bring your attention back to RSP. For sources where due weight is an issue, you'll see it noted under 'Summary'; none of the sources listed have such a signifier in their summaries); I don't see any of them as constituting undue weight. I don't mean to seem dismissive or impolite, as I recognize due weight needs to be evaluated especially carefully for BLPs; I just believe weight and reliability have both been established, and I think removing these statements would actually detract from the completeness and due weight of the article.

I've gone ahead and replaced the Newsweek article for Greene's impeachment of Biden – not to demonstrate due weight, but rather because that article was written January 13, whereas the filing happened January 21, so post facto sources are better (plus we already had one of the sources, meaning less reference clutter, and neither of these are limited access; yay!). While I was at it, I added references to further substantiate due weight for the statements I contributed, as I don't want to appear biased toward my own contributions in the GA review. I'm also going to add sources to the first Newsweek citation in 'Responses outside Congress', because as I noted above, it could become very diluted if we just list any organization that's criticized or praised her, thus due weight becomes a larger issue. To correct one thing, the "YouTube" source is a mirror – linked to by a reliable source (just having three brief posts on the noticeboard sans an RfC and ending up with a yellow exclamation mark for sometimes having an editorial bias [this article does not reflect such a bias whatsoever] does not make it an altogether unreliable source) – of the GPB debate itself, i.e. it's a source from Georgia Public Broadcasting.

As an aside: regarding productivity, I will note that this discussion has made me realize that the 'Donald Trump and Joe Biden' subsection (regarding election results and attempt to impeach Biden) probably doesn't belong unless it's substantially expanded, as it consists of two sentences solely about material taken almost verbatim from elsewhere in the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: - I've taken the time to replace what I've highlighted above, myself (at least, those that you didn't already clear up, thanks for clearing some) with better sources. I am glad to say that most of the content was vaguely replaceable on the same topic. For During the same debate, Cowan questioned Greene's acceptance of Paycheck Protection Program money despite her opposition to congressional appropriations of relief funds during the pandemic. - I found Project On Government Oversight and New York, the former of which does mention Cowan but reliability is unknown, the latter of which is reliable but doesn't mention Cowan, but does mention the loan. Perfect is the enemy of good, so I'm just leaving this here on the record if anyone wants to challenge it in the future. Now, for In 2017, Greene visited Washington, D.C. to protest against a Republican gun control compromise, I couldn't find another source for it. I believe it's unimportant and WP:UNDUE due to the lack of coverage. We should remove it. starship.paint (exalt) 13:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: @Curbon7: Alright, that makes sense. I might see what I can find on Greene's trip to D.C. some other time. I'm going to catch up on the review. Sorry for being gone so long; just been busy. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• TheTechnician27 How's the review going? Curbon7 (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Curbon7. Real life stuff butted in (not anything bad; just hectic), and because this article is so active, each day I missed lost the review more momentum and requires more work, but now that that's passed, I've made some time to catch up and finish up the review tomorrow evening, as it's pretty much just a matter of reviewing new changes for GA compliance and resolving those few nagging details that were there when I had to stop. I'm really sorry; I should've been keeping you in the loop. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Alright, let's take a crack at getting this done tonight. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: After having taken a look at the additions made, I see no issue with them in terms of the GA review (well-written, well-sourced, positively add to the article while not getting sidetracked; quality stuff). Now the only semi-major issues I think remain are the unsourced statement (marked with 'citation needed') in 'Removal from House Committee assignments'. This is easily removable, however, and later transplanted back into the prose when an adequate source is found.

@Curbon7: I've passed the subsections 'Responses within and outside Congress' and 'Up to Camp Fire'. The only reason the former wasn't passed before is because of a standing issue with a completely uncited statement (I also checked the new sources and confirmed they're reliable, do say what we're saying they do, and aren't closely paraphrased from). Having resolved this, that subsection passes. 'Up to Camp Fire' was never checked because I still had a couple statements left to go before my review got put on the back burner; with those statements checked, that's also resolved, so it passes. I'm also passing '2020 congressional campaign', as I've mulled it over, and I think Doles' own social media is an acceptable primary source for this very minor claim that the photograph was taken at the February 29 rally and not, say, some other time and place (it's not like the authenticity of the photograph itself – the actual contentious claim – is in question). I know checking three of these at once seems like rubber stamping, but I allocated all night to do this, and the fact is that I hadn't realized (due largely to how the good quality of the intermediate edits published while I was gone made reviewing them a breeze) how close I was to actually being done. The last point here is the 'Personal life' section because of the dead Vimeo link. I've mulled this one over a lot (too much), and I'm still completely split on what to do, so even though this feels like a cop-out, I think as the lone reviewer of an article of this scale and significance I'm allowed to try for at least one cop-out. I'm going to put this to a binary vote between Curbon7, Starship.paint, and Philip Cross, since you're all good editors who have contributed a lot to this article and for all practical purposes know it as well as I do. I'll summarize my conflicting thoughts on the issue thusly by copy-pasting from a question I asked to another editor but haven't heard back about:

"I'm reviewing for criteria 2c and 2d, and unfortunately, there's a dead video link that's the sole supporter of a statement in the article's 'Personal life' section (I could not find any alternative). I believe it to be permanently dead until somebody comes along and uploads an archive out of the blue (as the video was circulated on Twitter and cited by multiple reliable sources, I'm of the opinion that offline archives exist). Firstly, I know that the source itself is reliable and what it purports to be, as it's referenced directly and even embedded by several reliable sources, including Politico. Secondly, the claims attributed to it are fairly time, e.g. that she was baptized at age 7 to take her First Communion. Thirdly, I recognize that – while WP:LINKROT notes that a dead link "harms verifiability" – it is Wikipedia policy that reliable sources should not be rejected simply because they are difficult to access. However, I wonder if you think this could be an extenuating circumstance given 1) there's technically no concrete evidence an offline archive exists, 2) this falls under the purview of WP:BLP, and 3) the claim isn't absolutely crucial to understanding her personal life." Basically, do we keep this passage in the article or shelf it until such a time as an archive is found for the video? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, RE: the video, I don't think it matters very much since it's a very minor detail, so I'm okay with the removal if no archive exists. Curbon7 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

- I've already raised my concerns, I did try to address them myself also, to the best of my ability. Do I think they are fully addressed to my liking? Not completely. Am I going to stand in the way of the review? No. starship.paint (exalt) 08:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Having not heard from Philip and given your opinion, I erred on the side of caution and removed the statement attributed to the video. Seeing as no edits have been made between the 25th and now and as that was the only concern with 2c and 2d in 'Personal life', I'm going to pass 'Personal life' for 2c and 2d, and consequently pass the review – as of, for posterity, this revision. Given the article's indefinite extended protection, I don't foresee edit warring as an issue for the sake of criteria 5, but this article is very much going to need consistent, quality editorship to remain a GA. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-GA suggestions

@Curbon7: I have a suggestion which I think would improve the article, but which are outside the scope of a GA review. I think '2020 congressional campaign' would be better split into three subsections instead of the current two. The prose from '2020 congressional campaign' to its subsection 'Endrosements' is super long (much moreso than any other section), and there is a logical point to split it, namely 'Primary campaign' and 'General election'. I think this would improve readability, both because it helps readers reading the entire article keep themselves oriented and because it helps those who come to the article for specific information find what they're looking for. In the meantime, I've gone ahead and marked GA criteria 2a and 6b as a pass. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, I agree, that section is kind of a wall of text right now. Curbon7 (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, In a perfect world, there would be images placed there and throughout the other areas with significant walls of text, but alas I'm pretty sure all of the relevant pictures that exist and are correctly licensed are already included in the article. Curbon7 (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Yeah, I actually removed an idea I'd suggested here previously upon realizing that the image I saw on Commons almost certainly doesn't meet fair use, let alone have the CC-4.0 licensing it claims to. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, I just had a genius (and obvious) idea of how to break up the wall of text. You can revert if you think it doesn't work. Curbon7 (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Not only do I think it works fantastically, but it also meshes well with an idea I had before. Give me a few minutes to implement it and let me know what you think. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Went ahead and implemented it. I didn't sandbox that at all, but I actually think it works pretty nicely, especially in conjunction with your idea. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, looks awesome now! Curbon7 (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Leaving unsourced claim here in case anyone wants to deal with it later

"but [Handel] was defeated for a full term in 2018. Greene thus became the first Republican woman elected to a full House term from Georgia."

Curbon7 was unable to find a source, but the claim seems entirely plausible. Therefore, I'll leave this here in case anyone else wants to tackle it or in case I want to come back to it later. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It could also be OR, so I wouldn't necessarily leave it. 04:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

If you mean on the talk page, NO we should not leave it here. the talk page is not a place to put unsourced speculation just because it can't go in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Having thought about it, even though it's trivially easy to prove (calling it "entirely plausible" was an understatement that I made while I was tired; it's provably the case that the first was Handel,[1], provably the case that Greene was the second Republican woman to represent Georgia in the House (proof by exhaustion), and provably the case that Handel never served a full term (once again by exhaustion)), I'm going to keep it out of the article, just because it's such a trivial aspect of her election. If anything, I'm probably also going to remove the statement about becoming the "second Republican woman to represent Georgia in the House", just because 1) no RSes I can find mention that, let alone signify that as a notable aspect of her election, 2) since no RSes bring this up, I'd have to use sources to clunkily prove a negative, i.e. that there were no Republican women representing the House between Handel and Greene, and 3) it once again just has so many qualifiers ("second"; "Republican"; "woman"; "Georgia"; "House") that it isn't even worth it unless there's an RS specifically saying it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Usage of the word “Far right”

Is she actually far right?, we don’t call economically far right and socially far right people, ideas, political ideologies and movements far right that often, she’s not arguing for unlimited laissez-faire capitalism, an ethnostate or other actually far right things, she’s just a pro trump conservative who spouts disproven conspiracy theories with an anti Semitic flair, and the far left Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin was anti Semitic, so anti semitism is not an inherently right wing idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godzillasizedemu (talk • contribs) 00:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Godzillasizedemu, In the article, hover over the number 3 right next to the word far-right. Curbon7 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Intro

"Greene has promoted numerous far-right, white supremacist, and antisemitic conspiracy theories including the white genocide conspiracy theory, QAnon, and Pizzagate, as well as other disproven conspiracy theories, such as false flag mass shootings, the Clinton body count, and 9/11 conspiracy theories." I question the use of "disproven" in this sentence in the introduction - it implies that the first three conspiracies somehow still have some ground (and have yet to be "disproved") to stand on, and differ substantially from the latter three, which is obviously not the case. Esmost ^talk 00:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

My reading of it is that all are disproven. I would agree with you if there was an extra comma: "... as well as other, disproven conspiracy theories"... But the way it's written now, both the first three and the others are disproven. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your reading. I find the term disproven to be redundant and it implies that there could be conspiracy theories that have or could be proved to be true. TFD (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I think disproven needs to be moved to the front.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of an proven conspiracy theory? TFD (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Ahh I see, I think we should say it, so no one can think we are saying they are not disproven. I think we should always say it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I Googled "Conspiracy Theory proven true" to get a possibly more useful statement and found this Michael Shermer (skeptic, teaching at Chapman University) video. At 15:00 into the video, there's a great graphic that enumerates the percentage of people who believe various such theories: [12] i.e., "Obama is the Anti-Christ," 13%, "chemtrails," 5% (the number may still include Kelli Ward, the chairman of the Arizona Republican Party). Woo, woo! Activist (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2021

I don’t know this politician but I know she is a senator or something and is well respected. It seems like a 12 year old went in and wrote crazy stuff like she hates Jewish people and what not. I want an unbiased overview of who this person is. Whoever wrote it is clearly very bias against whoever this is and that makes research hard. I love wiki for its unbiased presentations but this overview is NOT that. Please correct or open up for corrections so someone who knows the facts and doesn’t write with emotion can edit. Thank you wiki! 2600:1003:B464:3913:813D:9EC1:60B0:927A (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

See WP:YESBIAS. Wikipedia inherits whatever biases are present in reliable sources. If the majority of reliable sources say the Earth is round, Wikipedia will also say it is round. Similarly, if the majority of reliable sources say Marjorie is an antisemite, Wikipedia will also say she is an antisemite. Kleinpecan (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2021

Request that information about my representative be only verified facts. There is no factual evidence that she supports conspiracy theories. North Georgia is not a racist area or conspiracy camp. 2600:1005:B053:4F2:9881:8802:232D:6155 (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read the talk page archives, this will explain to you why your request will not be honored.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Fortunately, everything in this article is a fact, backed up by reliable sources. Nobody said anything about North Georgia, which is not the subject of this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

She is also viewed as an American Patriot. 2600:8802:400D:7800:906E:5C24:EFB9:330F (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Your suggested edit is (sourced to RS of course)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

“and far-right[4] conspiracy theorist[5]”

That is 110% someone’s opinion and judgement….NOT objective, factual information. 75.76.51.5 (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see the talk page archives about this, and the top of this talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See #FAQ. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2021

Remove the controversies section of the article, and integrate the content into the rest of the article.

From Wikipedia's guidelines: "However, sections dedicated to negative material may violate the NPOV policy and may be a troll magnet, which can be harmful if it leads to users with strong opinions dominating the article but may simplify maintenance of the article if unhelpful edits are limited to a single section." 76.210.33.19 (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I rather agree, lets just add this into a views section.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2021 (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. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That said, I also support this change. There are many right ways to do it, and I'd like to see a bit more consensus before restructuring. We shouldn't keep the edit request open until consensus and a plan are developed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this should be done. WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONS should be avoided. I agree that it will take some working out on the talk page to implement. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

While I am almost always against controversy sections (heck I was even able to integrate the controversy section in the Matt Gaetz article), I think this is one of the very few exceptions; I don't think there is any way to integrate this controversy section. I'll for sure be 100% on board to help, but I'm just not seeing at the current moment how it would really be possible.

I'll start a new section on this talk page so we can brainstorm there. Curbon7 (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2021

The section claiming she is a far-eighth conspiracy theorist is politically charged and not based in fact. To make such a claim with only one source being referenced is indicative of poor research. This section needs to be removed immediately. 166.216.158.211 (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I suggest you click or tap the "one reference," which will reveal a large number of sources for each statement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Parity in Articles

There should not be bias in Wikipedia articles. Compare the Wikipedia article on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to this article. Both are controversial politicians. There are many references available detailing where AOC represented mistruths. These were either lies or conspiracy theories. Both politicians were heavily involved in filing impeachment charges against a sitting president. There is no reason for this article or the AOC article to be an endorsement or opposition to their political stance. The articles should be factual in the lead with sub-paragraphs that can address controversies. I have great respect for Wikipedia, but for me to continue to contribute to this endeavor, there needs to be a concerted effort to keep political/social articles unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.221.163 (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF, but even so, everything here is sourced, if you think there is stuff missing from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's article take it there.Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You have to discuss AOC in her article. The parity however is false. While the two are at opposite ends of the spectrum in Congress, in worldwide terms, AOC is center-left, while MTG is extreme right. If they were in Germany for example, AOC would be SDP, while MTG would be AFD. The articles are in any case supposed to reflect perception in reliable sources, which means that MTG's article will show her in a negative light. Of course, sometimes articles are more hostile than reliable sources and should be corrected. So if you think that this article portrays MTG in a more negative light than CNN, you can point that out and we can fix it. TFD (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Guns Guns Guns

I am not sure we need everytime she decided to launch a competition to win a gun we need to include it just "She has run number of competitions with guns as prizes" will do.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the gun giveaways are WP:NOTNEWS and not relevant to her political position(s) on guns. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

There might be an argument for a brief mention (not sure where) but at the end of the day it's trivia.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The extreme imagery (blowing things up) and rhetoric connected to these giveaways can be seen as relevant to her positions, perhaps not even so much on guns, but more to her use of such extremist tools of communication (i.e. the 'Political violence and extremism' section). Don't have a strong opinion on this, just my 2c. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2021

" Far right conspiracy theorist" needs to be removed from this article immediately. It is untruthful and Wikipedia can and should have this specific implication removed from this article.

Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974), also known by her initials MTG[2] and Marjorie Greene,[3] is an American politician, businesswoman, and far-right[4] conspiracy theorist[5] serving as the U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district. 2601:CF:8201:6D90:FC2C:5DFF:FE51:7980 (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Given that there are sources for both far-right and conspiracy theorist in the intro, not to mention what's in the body of the article, there is no justification for removal. —C.Fred (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Multiple mentions of the same thing

Is this standard practice? Even if it is perhaps applicable to multiple sub-topics within an article, it seems a little odd to list Rep. Greene's Twitter ban in both the Twitter section and the Covid-19 section. Zaathras (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It's relevant in both sections and is relatively short. If it were longer, there might be cause for concern. -- Valjean (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we do not need to mention anything more than once (except in the lead and body).Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so where is the best spot? Mention in the need would obviate any need for multiple mentions, so I'll do that. It's a pretty notable event. -- Valjean (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Either fits.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I left the one in the Twitter section since her other Twitter sanctions are all mentioned there. -- Valjean (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Is being banned form a social media platform lead-worthy? Zaathras (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

For a high-profile person, it really is. -- Valjean (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

For now I would say yes; we can re-assess further down the line. Curbon7 (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I dunno. Trump's persona was wrapped so tightly around social media prevarication, and the fact that he was the leader of one of the most powerful nations on earth, that his ban from multiple platforms was a seismic event - and that doesn't even rate a mention in the lead of his article. MTG is one of 435 members of the House, and has only been a member for literally 365 days. Is her ban (and only her personal account, @RepMTG is still active) really that critical to her biography? Zaathras (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras: Let me give you a slightly different perspective. Trump was the president for 4 years (plus lenthy campaigns before and controversies after); there's so much ground to cover. Social media bans were just one aspect. The Donald Trump article has a whole section about his Twitter issue and a standalone article, Social media use by Donald Trump. It took Trump 4 years before he got his ban. We can't make the Trump article lead paragraph 3 volumes long, now can we.

On the other hand Greene has only been in office a year, and her posts have been so controversial that her Twitter account was suspended at the start of her so-far one year service, again at the mid-point, and now losing her account. Any non-high-profile person would have lost their Twitter account long before one year had passed.

With social media being the primary medium through which disinformation purveyors have been operating, and the backlash and pressure on Big Tech to do something about it, barring a high-profile user has been a headline-making event, followed by continued debate (and protest). Greene continued to push that envelope and Twitter eventually said "stop!" I'm sure she's privately wearing it as a badge of honor at the same time she's publicly railing against the ban. Yeah, lead paragraph stuff... at least for this article. Platonk (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

And of course Trump is defending her. -- Valjean (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Controversy integration

I suppose the first thing to consider is this: Is the prose of the controversy section ok? That is, is the only thing we should change is the moving of the sections? Curbon7 (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

For now I think we can just move it all into Political positions. With the exception of the Qanon stuff we we should move into General election.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I was thinking the two "Responses" sections could fit into the tenure sub-section. Curbon7 (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Or that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Prose ok. I moved the sections. Responses could be moved, but it might be better to keep them this way. — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Alalch Emis, looks solid, great job! Curbon7 (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

After seeing this article and quote conspiracy theorist being used is if there was a real definition of that word and not just an attack on somebody's character oh, I no longer will support Wikipedia and I will spread the word that it is nothing but a left-wing bias and useless source of information. -Jf (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Jmurphy914, the definition of conspiracy theorist is one who believes conspiracy theories. What precisely in Marjorie_Taylor_Greene#Advocacy_based_on_conspiracy_theories is inaccurate or biased? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Because "conspiracy theory" is ambiguous. Anything can be called one by anyone and it's being used as an attack on her character, not for actual information. -Jf (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If anything, there is a conspiracy to make this woman look like a radical terrorist on here for multiple editors own political reasons -Jf (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia follows what the sources have to say, not one's feelings. Taylor Greene is described as a conspiracy theorist by a rather large swath of reliable sources, so the article reflects that. ValarianB (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"National divorce" comments

I can currently not edit the article because of the protection, but Greene's frequent comments about a possible new "civil war", "National Divorce" and possible armed insurrection should be included in it. Some of her comments:

• https://www.salon.com/2022/01/12/marjorie-taylor-greene-suggests-using-second-amendment-rights-against-democrats
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-national-divorce-states-b1984460.html
• https://www.salon.com/2021/12/29/marjorie-taylor-greene-must-be-expelled-for-toying-with-the-idea-of-civil-war-congressman-says_partner/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordostsüdwest (talk • contribs) 21:59, January 15, 2022 (UTC)

THis was a reaction to a single tweet by someone who deliberately courts controversy for the sake of it. No I do not think this is relevant, when (and if) it becomes an actual platform promoted many times, then maybe.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Salon.com is not a source. It's a joke -Jf (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven -Jf (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Greene's rants are further evidence that the whiniest Americans are white people. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, but can we chill out with the racism? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm also white. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not see these "national divorce" comments to matter enough to include, if we're only basing it on those three sources. Salon.com is not the best source, they do lean left too much. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The Second Amendment comment was widely circulated. However, she's made so many controversial comments that we can't list them all. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"has been criticized "

Amitabho, if I do go ahead and revert you three times", that's not a WP:3RR violation, if that's what you're implying. This wording has been agreed to on this talk page. You're adding some potential WP:WEASEL words, this is not an improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• 'Conspiracy theorist' is not a facially neutral term, especially considering that the subject of the article merely believes in conspiracy theories, but does not originate them. The provided sources are articles from the Washington Post, The Guardian and CNN, which border on editorials and refer to her as a 'conspiracy theorist' in passing. The uncritical use of the term preceding her actual role, which - no matter how much you may dislike it - is as the United States representative for the 14th district of Georgia, is indefensible. One may as well quote Fox News, which is far more popular than all of these sources combined, to open the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article with "politician, former bartender and socialist". The use of this term in this way violates WP:NPOV, and NPOV supersedes both your sources (which, again, are news articles from non-neutral sources) and your consensus. At the minimum, 'conspiracy theorist' could be limited to the second paragraph, rather than leading the article as a primary descriptor. — Amitabho Chattopadhyay talk 03:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean that reliable sources are ignored just because they say unflattering things about the subject. This is a settled matter. Zaathras (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, "has been criticized" is bad writing. The word "criticism" is overused, bland, vague, and lame. People try to use it for referring to everything between "you are wrong because <list of ten rock-solid justifications>" and "I am allowed to disagree with you" or "you are going to Hell for that". I even had to remove Adolf Hitler from Category:Critics of Judaism several times. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous RS that flat out describe Greene as a conspiracy theorist, and they are all cited in sentence one. I see no issue with WP:NPOV, WP:WIKIVOICE, or MOS:LABEL considering the abundance of RS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Same here it is well-sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Extramarital affairs

Claims of MTG's extramarital affairs are a matter of public record. Can we reach consensus on how to record them? Nangaf (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Note that The Daily Mail and The Sun in the UK are deprecated sources. The New Yorker is an approved source. I am not sure about OK Magazine. Nangaf (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Why would we want to record them at all? Bishonen | tålk 07:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC).

Oh, I see they're already in the article. I suggest we remove them. Bishonen | tålk 07:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC).

MTG is a public figure, who campaigns on family values. The sources are not tabloid media. Nangaf (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we would need a reliable source that points out this incongruity; it isn't our job to assume it is worth noting. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read the New Yorker piece. It explicitly makes that connection:

He told me he later learned that she was also sleeping with another man who was not her husband, “while the whole time being ‘super Christian.’ ” He added, “She’s not the pro-family, pro-Christian, strong-business woman she touts herself to be.”

The same quote is used in a commentary piece in Vanity Fair. Nangaf (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

IMO it would lack balance to include the sentence from the previous paragraph that MTG frequently makes mention of her faith and wants to bring family values to Washington, and not make mention of well-substantiated allegations that her family life is not above reproach. Nangaf (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

How well-substantiated are we really talking about here? Please read WP:BLPGOSSIP. We are really, really conservative about adding mere allegations for good reason. You said The New Yorker ran it. Link please. Where else? OK Magazine is a tabloid as far as I know. WP:RSP doesn't have an opinion on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.newyorker.com/news/us-journal/how-the-qanon-candidate-marjorie-taylor-greene-reached-the-doorstep-of-congress

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/24/teeing-up-with-qanon

https://okmagazine.com/p/marjorie-taylor-greene-openly-cheated-husband-with-men/

Also https://okmagazine.com/p/congresswoman-marjorie-taylor-greene-transphobic-attack-marie-newman/ but it probably just repeats a Daily Mail article. Nangaf (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It does look like OK Magazine is just a gossip rag repeating stuff elsewhere -- probably best to ignore. Nangaf (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems kinda gossipy and taboidish, tbh. Zaathras (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I would leave it out unless it had mainstream media coverage. The argument that it should be mentioned because it shows hypocrisy is not policy based. It's up to sources to report that connection. It could be that sources are not reporting this because they have higher standards of proof before they report allegations. TFD (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The New Yorker is a mainstream publication. It is not up to us to speculate on why it has not been reported elsewhere: the fact is that is has already been reported in a high quality source. And the source explicitly reports the contrast between MTG's private behavior and public persona. Nangaf (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, its tittle tattle. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It would be better to use these sources to discuss general hypocrisy (as the sources seem to be doing. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I am coming around to that view. It seems that would avoid putting potentially WP:UNDUE emphasis on these allegations, taking into account that they happened some time before she became a public figure. Nangaf (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Given the apparent consensus against including the detail of the allegations, I have substituted a single sentence concerning the allegations of hypocrisy in relation to the alleged infidelities and would welcome discussion. Nangaf (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

One sentence seems to be in line with giving the topic due weight, sure. ValarianB (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Legal status of her Re-Election Campaign

I'm curious that there is not a page on her profile covering the legal battle regarding her re-election campaign and the Disqualification Clause. This breaks relatively new ground from a constitutional law perspective and is probably the most relevant thing about her current candidacy. Can it be included please? Mccartneyac (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)mccartneyac

According to the article (subheading "2022 Primary ballot challenges" and footnote 340) there was a court case due to restart on 22nd April. Can anybody tell us what happened?. Did MTG give evidence? Has the Federal Judge given judgement yet or is it reserved?Spinney Hill (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"Pro-Russian Propaganda"

The article referenced for this makes zero mention of Greene promoting Russian propaganda. The only time the word was mentioned was quoting a Republican senator tweeting that some Russian propaganda outlets promoted Greene, which is a) different than the other way around, and b) not followed up on at all in the article.

Remove the line about spreading pro-Russian "propaganda" and replace it with "During the Russo-Ukrainian War, Greene backed Russia's invasion and praised Vladimir Putin." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goblintear (talk • contribs) 00:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

From the article,

“You see, Ukraine simply stored poking the bear, and poking the bear, which is Russia, and Russia invaded,” the Georgia congresswoman mentioned. “There isn’t a win for Ukraine right here. Russia is being profitable of their invasion.”

That's pro-Russian propaganda, bud. Zaathras (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not the author's - this doesn't meet WP:RS. Find a new source or change it, with all due respect. Goblintear (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras, forgot to tag you. Goblintear (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not opinion, but fact. Zaathras (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras Then find a reliable source that says it, because that article right now does not. Goblintear (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It does. Move on. Zaathras (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Qualified to run for re-election

"Marjorie Taylor Greene is qualified to run for re-election, Georgia official says"

Someone with editing privileges of this wiki should update it to accurately reflect the truth of the judges decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modern NFL Historian (talk • contribs) 04:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

It has been a week since the judge's decision that the charge was unpersuasive. When will the locked-in editors deign to correct the description of the case on this page? Keeping it uncorrected is a politically biased abuse of the facts. jimswen (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I see in the article On May 6, the judge ruled that she was eligible for reelection, but the final decision belongs to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. What are you talking about? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, the article says: "Greene is running for reelection in 2022,[26] though she is currently facing a legal challenge to her eligibility based on her alleged involvement in organizing and promoting the 2021 United States Capitol attack, based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which bars people who have engaged in insurrection from serving in Congress.[27]" The word "currently" is factually false, and a truthful resolution would acknowledge that the challenge was dismissed. jimswen (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha, you meant in the lead. I took it out. It's covered in the body that the judge did not declare her unqualified, and the unsuccessful challenge to her eligibility isn't important enough to be in the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Social activism

I’d like to discuss her social activities in the communities she represents 174.97.54.78 (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, so bring some wp:rs to the table, and suggest some edits. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

In popular culture

I added to the section, "In popular culture": "On January 17, 2022, Greene allegedly texted Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadow, "In our private chat with only Members, several are saying the only way to save our Republic is for Trump to call for Marshall [sic] law."

Slatersteven removed it because it is not popular culture. He is right, but the reason I put it there is that "In popular culture" contains this sentence: "On February 9, 2022, Greene triggered a wave of jokes after talking about "gazpacho police" guarding the Capitol building. She had confused the cold Spanish soup with the Gestapo."

My sentence reports an error that is similar to the gazpacho error. Perhaps both should be elsewhere, in an existing or a new section. I'll leave it to another editor.Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

We do not need every stupid thing she says, the page would be too large. Slatersteven (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

But they're funny! Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand that the article can't capture everything she says. But the Marshall Law/gazpacho comments, and her latest, "peach tree dish," say something about her knowledge, and some of this makes sense to include in the article. A link re the Peach Tree Dish comment: https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dgne3/marjorie-taylor-greene-says-bill-gates-will-force-you-to-eat-burgers-made-in-a-peach-tree-dish 2603:8001:2A00:7428:1062:DD53:C2D:2B9B (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Propaganda

I noticed while I was perusing congressman and congresswomen that "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, also known by her initials AOC, is an American politician and activist." Was the tag line for AOC meanwhile Marjorie Taylor Green also known by her initials MTG, is an American politician, businesswoman, and far-right conspiracy theorist who has served as the U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district since 2021. That seemed kind of off and interesting. So I investigated further and noticed more interesring things, Andrew Scott Clyde is an American politician and gun dealer from the state of Georgia. With that I believe the proper statement would be to call them as they are, a Firearms Distribution CEO. Not "Gun Dealer." I spent roughly 10 minutes looking through the list of representatives and made it through maybe 5 individuals. Why is it considered pertinent information to add in personal opinions to a description of an individual, that would be considered defamation? Whould it not? To use the worlds number 1 open sourse information platform to push an agenda instead of utilizing the platform for its purpose? And then locking said information down to lock in the spread of the propaganda? While pushing the agenda of individuals that are "preferred," as an Information platform it is not the Duty of Wikipedia to spread political ideologies, it is the duty to put forward the most accurate information possible and leave it at that. 2600:8807:A7A6:8400:F895:7C31:2B03:8A6 (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The "most accurate information" is what is printed in reliable sources, which is what the Wikipedia uses. Zaathras (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It's protected from vandalism. (BTW I agree with you about the Andrew Clyde intro and just fixed it. But in the future, discuss the article on the article talk page, don't discuss other articles on an article talk page.) – Muboshgu (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit request - "Big Lie" link

I see the article is locked, but there is one change I think should be made in the lead section: the phrase "Greene has repeatedly and falsely claimed that Trump won the election in a landslide victory that was stolen from him" currently links to a section of the Big Lie page about Trump. Personally I think it would make more sense to link it to either Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election or Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud. Those latter two articles are about the claims and events themselves; the section of the "Big Lie" article is more about the use of that phrase when talking about the claims.

Also, more subjectively - this feels like Wikipedia referring to the election claims as "the Big Lie" in its own voice, and I feel ambivalent about that. It is certainly true that Trump's claims were a lie that is big, but as the Big Lie article discusses, the common use of that phrase since its origin has been in reference to the Holocaust. I know that since 2020 some people have also used it to refer to Trump's claims (as discussed in that section), but personally I think doing so frequently can be seen as insensitive by some, because it can seem to imply that Trump's actions were equally as bad as the Holocaust. So for that reason I don't think linking to it this way in the MTG article feels neutral. GranChi (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The sentence in question, A supporter of Trump's efforts to overturn his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election, Greene has repeatedly and falsely claimed that Trump won the election in a landslide victory that was stolen from him, does already link to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. It might be better to swap out the Big Lie with the other link, but I'm not sure and look for the input of others. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Her mother?

Why does the post include her father’s name, but not her mother’s? 174.199.39.150 (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Is her mother mentioned in any WP:RS? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

How odd, after a bit of searching I can find no mention of her mother or really much any discussion of her childhood. Usually famous people at some point have had an expose or profile written about them, but virtually every story begins with her HS graduation. Zaathras (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist in lede

Has there been an RFC on the conspiracy theorist title in the lede? I see this discussion Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene/Archive_2#Conspiracy_theorist. Seems strange to call a sitting member of congress a conspiracy theorist before her title of congresswoman. I do see she is running for re-election, so if she is not re-elected then maybe the title would be fine. Are there any other sitting members of government (any country) that are referred to as conspiracy theorists? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

We do not have to have RFC's unless there is a clear disagreement that can't be solved (so by all means launch one). I also think the problem is that even before she was actually elected she was called a Conspiracy theorist. However, she is not a member of the government, if anything she is the opposition (but that is also not strictly accurate). Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I dont think that distinction that you make (part of govt or part of opposition) exists in US politics and even if it did it wouldn't justify the weight issue. Your point that she was referred to as conspiracy theorist prior to election could be valid. I am more wondering if this weight issue is subject of local consensus or broader consensus, seems the former. Is that right? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: See the FAQ please. ––FormalDude talk 16:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 June 2022

Remove and far-right[3] conspiracy theorist[4] Zjnick (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See the huge amount of discussion about this in the sections above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The best joke

Is this entire article. Regarding popular culture and news dumping, see WP:10YT. Decide whether you want to organize controversies chronologically or categorically and then stick to it – it's an utter mess. But of course then second someone starts to clean it up it's reverted, because god forbid someone deletes the historic one-off jokes by Trevor Noah and Jimmy Kimmel. I suppose we wouldn't know how "notorious" she is if we didn't know Joy Behar made fun of her.

Take pop culture in particular: look at the articles for literally every past politician – say Janet Reno, whose section is even more restrained than I would choose, because Will Ferrel's portrayal became emblematic of changing 90s attitudes toward sexism. But it's a fair editorial choice because the article is about Reno and not one comedian or one show. Take criticism where you can get it, because most people avoid editing these articles like the plague. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I have seen that elsewhere with "in popular culture" sections of biographical articles. Who wants to read that much ephemera of people being nasty?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

No one is forcing your to read it... Zaathras (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales talk page discussion pertaining to this article

You are all invited to join the discussion at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Use_of_term_"conspiracy_theorist".--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2022

A sentence in the second paragraph states: "A former Roman Catholic who later converted to Evangelicalism, she has repeatedly expressed anti-Catholic positions." I'd like to make "anti-Catholic" link direct to Anti-Catholicism instead. I think it's more relevant to a reader who wants to get an overview of the topic. Python Drink (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog:, could you look into this for me? -- Python Drink (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Again I ask, "Why ask me?" - Roxy the bad tempered dog 00:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not see the usefulness of this. Her views reflect the shallow, trendy movement within alt-right circles these days to view Catholicism in general and the Pope in particular as agents of the New World globalist agenda. Anti-Catholicism in the United States could use some better coverage of the rise of it within conservatism, but for now it is still the more appropriate link. MTG's agenda really has little to do with the historicity of Anti-Catholicism. Zaathras (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the recent interview for which Bill Donohue denounced Rep. Greene as anti-Catholic. There is a subsection about this interview ( Marjorie Taylor Greene#Anti-Catholicism ), but it is not linked to in any of the references in the article. This claim was critically analyzed by Molly Olmstead, writing for Slate. Olmstead does not agree with either Greene or Donohue. She did not label Greene as anti-Catholic in the Slate article, and instead contextualized why Donohue would label her anti-Catholic. Watching (some) of the interview with Michael Voris and reading the Slate article makes makes me think that the article should not agree with Donohue in the article voice, and instead should use nuance to contextualize Donohue's perspective; like Olmstead did.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)