Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Blatant WP:SYNTH violation in first sentence

these sources variously describe her as a conspiracy therorist and far-right but none of them as a "far-right conspiracy theorist", so that definitely has to be changed up. its also questionable if businesswoman and conspiracy therorist should be included at all per MOS:ROLEBIO -FMSky (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The lede is a summery of the article, the article has much about her being far right and a conspiracy theorist. Also one source "She has also embraced the far-right QAnon conspiracy theory" that is enough for me to say "far right" and "conspiracy theory". Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

do you know what WP:SYNTH is and have you read it? --FMSky (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's move "far-right" to "a far-right American politican". EvergreenFir (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

If it was the case there weren't sources describing her as a "far-right conspiracy theorist" I wouldn't be opposed to unbundling the references to describe her as a "far-right politician and conspiracy theorist", but it's not as if there isn't a wide range of perennial reliable sources describing MTG as being a far-right conspiracy theorist: for example, . ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah so put these in cause the others are a violation of the policy --FMSky (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a Leftist bias, and this article is proof. All that's needed is a "consensus" among the majority-Left editors. And the list of so-called "reliable sources" is also biased Left, with many conservative sources being disallowed simply because they're conservative. SimpsonDG (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

many conservative sources are disallowed because they lie a lot soibangla (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

""many conservative sources being disallowed" These sources tend to be less reliable and informative than toilet paper. Who would source anything to right-wing propaganda? Dimadick (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

By "Leftist," I assume you mean pro-capitalist. TFD (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

See wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

References

"Supposed" lasers

Re this edit: What we are looking at here is a direct quote from Greene. There is no need to hold the reader's hand and say "supposed", as this adds an element of WP:CLAIM. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. Adding the "supposed" weakens the sentence; the absurdity of the words actually quoted is fine by itself, and I don't see any need for extra emphasis that such lasers "do not and probably could not exist", as the user who reverted you says in their edit summary. (For myself, no such emphasis comes through, either; the wording with "supposed" just sounds like WP:ALLEGED gone mad.) Bishonen | tålk 08:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC).

I won't push the point further unless perhaps someone else agrees with meSpinney Hill (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Jewish space lasers

So I was using our search engine to look for an article that best covers public green space when I saw the term Jewish space lasers redirecting to the biography of a woman I assumed to be a space engineer. The excerpt in the search results only says:

Solaren had not launched any solar power satellites into space at all, let alone had one in space in 2018. On April 28, 2022, in an interview with the Catholic...

I naturally went in to check if the redirect was some undetected vandalism. Was I surprised to read what you folks have written here. Congratulations for managing to get this to GA level. It could not have been easy to maintain a serious tone. Surtsicna (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

GA was a long time ago, but this article has (imho) diminished in quality significantly since the editing restrictions currently in place effectively lock this article as-is. Any deletion can easily be reinstated, negating the entire premise of WP:ONUS. How on earth a controversial article such as this can override the spirit of BLP concerns and ONUS with, "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page", seems absurd, but here we are. If anyone wants to refute my observation, please let me know, because I'm sure several editors would love to clean this article up. ~ Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I concur that this article is likely no longer GA quality. Curbon7 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

So she did not talk about this? Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies here. I don't see how it's of any relevance to her career or record as a politician. Wikipedia does not need to cover every single controversy or word that rolls off the tongue of a public figure. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

True, but why not this one given its utter stupidity (which by the way, does tell us something about her), we need more than I do not like it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

We do have an article on alternative facts. Significant coverage is significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're trying to argue against inclusion of something that got the amount of mainstream media coverage that the Jewish Space Lasers insanity got, I don't know how in god's name WP:NOTEVERYTHING could possibly apply. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's due and presented neutrally. DFlhb (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the phrase "Jewish space lasers" is not a direct quote from Greene, but often appears in news stories and their headlines. It is a passably accurate summary of what she said in a now deleted social media post. Snopes rates the "Jewish space lasers" quote as a "Mixture" (ie it has some truth but is not completely true) due to the fact that it is not a direct quote from Greene.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

If User:Kcmastrpc has a specific wording they prefer, they have the attention of several editors. This is a well-covered incident. I'm sure abundant and varied sourcing exists. Given Snopes evaluation linked above, I'd be interested in seeing an alternative phrasing. BusterD (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

For the record the term "Jewish space lasers" isn't in the article, it's just the redirect. DFlhb (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Understood. I was merely inviting Kcmastrpc to offer their own version. BusterD (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Respect For Marriage Act (2022) Votes

Political position: LGBT rights:

On July 19, 2022, Taylor-Greene voted against The Respect for Marriage Act, which codified same-sex and interracial marriages in federal law. She subsequently voted against the Senate's version of the act on December 8, 2022.

[2]https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022373

[3]https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022513 Kirkhammer11 (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned on your talk page, we don't include individual votes unless there are secondary soruces that indicate they are somehow notable for inclusion. (all the others have been reverted too, btw). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Respect For Marriage Act (2022) Votes

Political position: LGBT rights:

On July 19, 2022, Taylor-Greene voted against The Respect for Marriage Act, which codified same-sex and interracial marriages in federal law. She subsequently voted against the Senate's version of the act on December 8, 2022.

[4]https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022373

[5]https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022513 Kirkhammer11 (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned on your talk page, we don't include individual votes unless there are secondary soruces that indicate they are somehow notable for inclusion. (all the others have been reverted too, btw). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Worthy of mention?

On October 26, 2023, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene proposed H.Res 829, censuring Tlaib for "leading an insurrection" and for her criticism of Israel, after she participated in a protest at the Capitol. The resolution did not pass, with all Democrats and nearly two dozen Republicans voting against it over concerns that the language was "too incendiary". Tlaib called the resolution "deeply Islamophobic" and said it attacked "peaceful Jewish anti-war advocates". Greene later amended and reintroduced the censure resolution... Drsruli (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

We know that the US House of Representatives is a highly contentious forum. I would propose that no censures or resolution bills would be worthy of mention unless they have been passed. You mention no bills that have passed, so far. jimswen (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, would consider that the resolution did eventually pass - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashida_Tlaib#Censure Drsruli (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Obvious lack of WP:NPOV

I should lead off with, I am not a MTG fan by any means; however, this article is a far cry from its glory days when it was given GA status. I am, however, very much a Wikipedia fan. I was going to start rewriting the article to take the glaring violations of NPOV out. I decided against it because I do not have the time or patience to deal with the stress of justifying a rewrite. She has been accused of all the racist/anti-Semitic/far-right conspiracy theories. Whether she actually is racist or anti-Semitic is subjective. The information can be included, but not in the intro section, and it should be completely rewritten to not sound like this article comes from a political propaganda site. Here is a reference from a professional encyclopedia. My two cents. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 16:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You are going to be reverted, I suggest you do not make those edits, but rather make a case. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Fortunately, I won't be reverted. Because, like I said, I'm not going to edit the article in the first place. My case was made. This article is a travesty of a professionally written article. I have nothing further to add. Cheers It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 16:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Then read WP:SOAP. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Good point! "Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view." Unfortunately, SOAP (in the context that you're suggesting against my comment) doesn't apply here. I'm talking about the quality of the article and glaring MOS violations. Obviously, you think the article is fine the way it is. I say that it violates NPOV. Someone who has the patience to deal with the drama can rewrite it to bring it up to established project standards. I just don't have the time or patience. It's a suggestion. You don't have to like it. But WP is not a democracy, it is "editing and discussing." It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 17:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not about what I think, article talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article, not just for telling us the article is crap. So if you bare not going to provide us with an example of the kind of edit you wish to make, this is a waste of everyone's time. Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. Cheers It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

By the way, we do not say she is racist or anti-Semitic in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't even edit a single letter of the main article; I only made a suggestion and look at the drama already! I've been doing this long enough to know what is worth the stress and what is not. I knew this would happen. No hard feelings, though. I know your intent is to improve the project. Anyway, this is a "soapbox" from which I will now step off! It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If we do not say something we can't remove it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The main difference between this article and EB is that this one is longer so goes into greater detail. The one thing I would change is to remove the description of her as a conspiracy theorist, which IMHO violates neutral tone. We would say for example a person with a mental disability rather than a mentally disabled person. TFD (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree, but if there's any person that actually does deserve to be described as a conspiracy theorist, it's this one. There are multiple events described reliably as conspiracy theories that she has espoused; QAnon, Pizzagate, 9/11, Clinton murders, Obama, white genocide, Stoneman Douglas / Sandy Hook ... there's really no end to her nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. The information (as a whole) should be included; however, it should be written as though it is not "gospel". Personally, I believe the woman is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. But my opinion should not be able to be seen in the article. The reader of the article should not be able to tell if the writer is for or against the subject matter. When writing "Person A is (subjective adjective A), (subjective adjective B), and (subjective adjective C)", it should be written instead "Person A is known for making controversial remarks, considered by some to be (subjective adjective A), (subjective adjective B), and (subjective adjective C)" and followed by references for each. Even though MJT, as looney as she is, and as obvious to us that she's a right-wing conspiracy theorist, we still have to remain neutral. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

We do remain neutral; it's not Wikipedia's problem if (a) multiple reliable sources report on her espousal of obvious conspiracy theories, and therefore (b) multiple reliable sources describe her as a conspiracy theorist. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I've boldly removed the label "conspiracy theorist" which is a value-laden name (as in "name-calling") and moved the source to the following paragraph that more objectively states which conspiracy theories she has supported. This change retains the essential content while preserving neutral tone. (Reasoning: "Politician" and "businesswoman" are jobs; "conspiracy theorist" is not.) —RCraig09 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

And I've restored it. There was an RfC on this which found consensus to include this term. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. The RfC was nominally based on WP:DUE rather than WP:NEUTRAL, and didn't focus on the "name" versus "action" issue that I perceived, but I can surmise what the the consensus would be, regardless. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It is absolutely WP's problem. What "multiple reliable sources" do are not WP's problem. If "multiple reliable sources" wish to not maintain a NPOV, that's on them. WP remains neutral. WP can use those sources as references, indicating the mood of some in the society, but WP does not take sides. I think you're missing my point. I'm not arguing about the content being included. I'm arguing about how it is written. As it stands, the content is written in a way that is obviously written from a certain political point-of-view. The reader of an encyclopedic article should not be able to discern the political stance of the writer. Period. An administrator with as much time as you have on WP should know better. That being said, I do appreciate the input. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

NPOV means neutrally reflecting what RS say, not maintaining a neutral approach to a subject when that would serve as a whitewash. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. So if one fills up an article with biased information, it's okay to continue the bias in the article because the writer "neutrally reflect(ed) what the RS sa(id)"? And if we neutralized the article the would be whitewashing? That sounds a lot like confirmation bias to me. Do me a favor. Look at the Joe Biden article. It is written neutrally. It states what he did and summarizes his personal and professional life. What is not mentioned is that he has been riddled with controversy from cocaine in the White House, Ukrainian collusion, mishandling of classified documents, and (most importantly) his mental status (which is widely documented). Imagine all that information (properly sourced) dominated the introduction. What do you think the response from the community would be? None of this is even in there as a "controversy" subsection. This is exactly why we have a reputation for liberal bias here. WP should be the source that one can go to for the actual facts without a left- or right-leaning bias. Neutrally written, factually based. I'm really not trying to get everyone riled up. It's just frustrating to see glaringly obvious bias, and have people (who should and actually do know better) try to gaslight me because of a political frame of reference. I'm a registered Libertarian. Conservative's think I'm liberal; liberals think I'm conservative. The fact is, what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. I've been editing this project for a long time, and this is wrong. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 14:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

See wp:falsebalance. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

One editor wrote, "if there's any person that actually does deserve to be described as a conspiracy theorist, it's this one." However, neutral tone means that articles do not pass moral judgment on subjects. An article for example can relate the actions of notorious criminals without saying directly to the reader "What a horrible criminal!"

On the other hand, another editor wrote, "So if one fills up an article with biased information, it's okay to continue the bias in the article because the writer "neutrally reflect(ed) what the RS sa(id)"?" That is of course how what Wikipedia calls Neutrality works. If reliable sources are generally favorable to a person, their article will be as well and vice versa. There are reasons why this policy was adopted and arguments against it. I won't go into that because this is not the forum to discuss policy. But as long as that is policy, editors must follow it in every article.

The challenge editors face is to avoid false balance, while maintaining neutral tone. In other words, the article must emphasize the negative information about Taylor Greene without appearing to take sides. We should follow Jane Goodall. She was in Africa to study bonobos and tell us how they behave, not to pass moral judgement on individual apes.

TFD (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Way too long

Some of the sections should be split off into their own articles with a summary and a link left in the main one. OriEri (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:SIZERULE, the word count is 10880 words, so it could be considered for trimming. However, it is not disastrously long.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Jewish space lasers again

Greene swore at Emily Maitlis when asked about this, telling her to f*** off.[6] Quite a bit of coverage, but is it WP:NOTNEWS? ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's just news. I think there's a Wikipedia principle that we should include content that will be relevant to readers in ten or twenty years. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Name

Why is she referred to as Greene throughout the whole article when her last name is Taylor Greene? --FMSky (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This is what reliable sources do, eg here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

She is listed as Greene in the Congressional directory and uses that name in her press releases. Taylor is her maiden name, which some women use as a middle name. TFD (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute Tag

I feel like there's good reason to remove the NPOV dispute tag per the parameters of removal for POV tags given this edit addressing the issue and a seeming lack of any further discussion. Coalah (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The tag was a WP:DRIVEBY by an editor with zero edits to either this page or the talk page prior to the addition of the page. The existing version was absolutely fine as it was. I've restored it. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Labelling her far-right isn't wrong but she's also commonly called right-wing, so including both makes more sense to me and seems more neutral --FMSky (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

She's much more widely described as far-right than right wing. Looking at the sources you added for right wing: this one also calls her far-right, this one doesn't even mention "right wing" and instead says she has a history of spreading "far-right conspiracy theories", the third one is an op-ed which calls her viewpoints "vile" and probably isn't great to use on a BLP, and this one appears to be a local news outlet which isn't quite as good as the litany of other RSPs calling her far-right. That leaves an article from TruthOut and SkyNews, which in themselves aren't enough to add "has also been called right-wing" without providing WP:FALSEBALANCE. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

These were just the first ones I found after 5 minutes googling, there are tons more. But either way I just think its wrong to tag her right in the opening sentence. Imo saying "has often been described as far-right" would sound less loaded, but thats just me --FMSky (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, do you not think this might be a bit WP:POINTy given you added "far-left" to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's article (a much less frequently used label for her than this for MTG, might I add), citing this exact article as an example? Either you think it's "wrong to tag" people in the opening sentence or not, and I can't tell which. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I literally did that because this page had far-right right in the opening sentence. It goes both ways. I also proposed another version there https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez&oldid=1213359430 Notice how I try different versions, try to find compromises while other users are just dead-set on their preferred ones. Really interesting imo --FMSky (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Right, so you're not necessarily against adding labels, good to know. The amount of sources describing MTG as being on the far-right are substantive enough, as determined by past discussions, to highlight it as prominently as it is in this article - hell, most of the reason she is known is for being a far-right politician, as if she was just a regular right-wing Republican two-term incumbent she'd be nowhere near as notable. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a massive fan of "far-right" in general (or for that matter "far-left", as per my edit on another female US politican recently). However, there's always an exception or two, and really if any US politician has the weight of reliable sources calling them "far-right", it's MTG, who is the definition of the phrase. I mean, just read that second paragraph in the lede. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You guys may be right. I just hadnt seen it on any politician before tbh --FMSky (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not think we should be describing modern politicians with "far-right" or "far-left" in the first sentence of the lede. I think it is WP:UNDUE because such terms are meaningless on their own (when compared to actual ideologies like communist or liberal) and need explanation, which can only occur further into the lede, and is often a lazy and cheap way of getting out of explaining entirely (such as in Josh Mandel). Curbon7 (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. The only time such labels should be used in the lead in WP:WIKIVOICE is if they're pulled from historians analyses, in which case the subjects are often deceased. Doing so on the basis of partisan sources that like to use labels to sensationalize headlines is incredibly irresponsible as an encyclopedia and almost certainly warrants further discussion per WP:BLPCT. Almost every modern controversial politician will have contentious labels associated with them (and this goes for either side) by the main stream media. That doesn't mean we need to use them as well to describe them in a lead. (There is certainly an argument to include it in the body where we describe how they are portrayed in modern media.) Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you let us know which sources currently used for this claim you view as "partisan"? I'm near certain all of them are reliable sources per WP:RSP. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Just because a source is deemed reliable does not guarantee it is without bias or partisanship -- especially when it comes to politics. I presumed that an editor with your experience would know that. WP:BIASED Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but much of the sources on RSP are deemed reliable because of their lack of bias. Could you tell us which sources you consider "partisan"? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think an RFC is needed to clear this up --FMSky (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I would support an RFC if you were so inclined to open one. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I see no support in any policy not to describe modern politicians as far-right or far-left, if that is how reliable sources describe them. Quite the opposite : see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jeppiz (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

First off, IDONTLIKEIT is about arguments to avoid in discussions. Secondly, reliably sourced coverage is the basis of every article we have. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Most particularly when we're dealing with a BLP subject. BusterD (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Which is exactly why we city such a large number of reliable sources all characterization MTG as far-right. Jeppiz (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Do we say that a media organization mentioned this article?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/demonstrably-heterosexual/ "What do you think Wikipedia says about her? Who is Marjorie Taylor Greene? She is a conspiracy theorist. She has extreme right views. As soon as a person says something that shows they are normal, America's media behemoth declares them a conspiracy theorist and a person of extreme right views."

Idk if this is specific enough to say that they mentioned this particular article. Woozybydefault (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Why? it does not seem significant to her. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

No, a passing mention of her Wikipedia article should not be mentioned in the article itself. If anything, {{Press}} could be used on the talk page. In this case, though, I don't think the mention is even significant enough to be listed on the talk page. Wracking ^talk! 15:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

{{Press}} was what I meant to suggest, though in hindsight it does look like I was suggesting we mention it in the article. After thinking about it, I agree with you that it's too trivial to mention in {{Press}}. Woozybydefault (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article?

I am surprised that this article was given "good article" status. First of all, it is not especially well-written and could definitely use more proofreading. Second of all, it has a supermarket tabloid-esque quality to it. In fairness, the supermarket tabloid-esque quality may be inevitable given who the article is about. MonMothma (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

This article achieved good article status two-and-a-half years ago and has certainly diminished in quality since then. Curbon7 (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We need rather more concrete proposals to work with, what are your specific objections? Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I was surprised, too. In any case - a little example, if anyone cares - comma error (needed after Georgia):

Cumming, Georgia in 1992 SuzQ! (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm also surprised to see that this article is a "Good Article". The Personal life section needs work, specifically the Crossfit paragraph. Some1 (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

House Speaker removal efforts

This is referred to in the intro. Does it need to be? Green's motion was defeated by a hefty majority. Is the fact that a small number of Democrats abstained significant? Quite a large number of Democrats and Republicans must have voted against the motion. Should these figures be included as well or instead? Should her motives for bringing this motion be included, whatever they are. Johnson appears from his article to be pretty right wing. Are they not on the same side? Was he trying to be impartial and she objected. (to explain: to my British mind the Speaker ought to be considered neutral.. The Speaker of the House of Commons sheds his or her party identity and during general elections none of the main parties stand against him. Speaker Bercow was criticised by some Conservatives on occasion for being too fair to the opposition. Is that what happened here?) Spinney Hill (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It may not be needed in the lede, but is this the first time she has publicly supported removing a speaker? Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Much too short. This talk page is not that active. Please extend to 180 days. Drsruli (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Updated to 90 days for now. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Inspiration for character in The Boys

Hi, proposed change in Marjorie Taylor Greene § In popular culture:

In June 2024, Season 4 of the series The Boys featured a new conservative superhero / podcast host named Firecracker. Showrunner Eric Kripke stated that Firecracker was directly inspired by Marjorie Taylor Greene.

References

SerChevalerie (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Trivia, silly Trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I went through WP:HTRIVIA, yes. However, WP:IPCV states:

When fictional characters are modeled after notable people or celebrities, they can be mentioned in the article about the person when the connection is identified in the primary source or attributed by a secondary source.

SerChevalerie (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

"can" does not mean "must". Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

or "should". not to mention both HTRIVIA and IPCV are essays. Let's set aside the opinions and look at this through the lens of WP:10YT -- is this character portrayal going to matter at all in the distant future (or the near future for that matter)? This reeks of WP:PROMO and MJTs BLP is not a platform for advertising or popular culture fictional references.

The Boys (TV series) has a Politics section where this could easily be referenced, and would be better suited there IMO. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Veteran Section

Taylor-Greene’s Veteran Section was Removed. Please re-add:

Veterans

The PACT ACT which expanded VA benefits to veterans exposed to toxic chemicals during their military service, received a "nay" from Taylor-Greene Regarding cannabis, despite lobbying from VSOs such as the DAV, Taylor-Greene also voted against 2022 MORE Act. Twillisjr (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Twillisjr (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

References

She has opposed many things, what makes this any more due than any of the others? Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

One would expect a right wing politician to support the forces and ex-servicemen and women. The fact that that she voted against benefits for those service people who have suffered their job seems to me therefore seems remarkable. Maybe the conservative urge to save public money beats this in her mind. I pas no comment on the cannabis point.Spinney Hill (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it most of the GOP voted against it, it does not seem that remarkable. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You cannot say it is remarkable because her vote fails to support veterans. That's something that requires a reliable source. TFD (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok that swings the argument your waySpinney Hill (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven are you volunteering to add it to an article such as: Republican Party (United States)? Twillisjr (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

No I am saying do not add it here. Slatersteven (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)