Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

To add to article

Basic information to add to this article: in which city she lives. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Already there. 174.212.238.226 (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

It says that she lives in Alpharetta. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 November 2020

Please replace the citation needed tag after "business administration" with the following source for her education:

<ref name="Rolling Stone">{{cite news |last1=Dickson |first1=E. J. |title=Marjorie Taylor Greene, Trump's Favorite QAnon Candidate, Wins Georgia Primary |url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/marjorie-taylor-greene-georgia-qanon-congress-1043129/ |accessdate=5 November 2020 |work=[[Rolling Stone]] |date=12 August 2020}}</ref>

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we remove "conspiracy theorist" from the opening? It reeks of political bias

Thanks 124.169.150.131 (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are written according to the WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT of Reliable Sources. In this case, the number of sources that use conspiracy theorist to describe her is quite strong. Shouting "political bias" doesn't mean much. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

People who support conspiracy theories are called "conspiracy theorists." KidAd talk 01:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an awful introductions. Jkowal43 (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Candidate disavowed conspiracy theories in her own interview.....seems like an adequate repsonse! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkowal43 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies is an essay you should read, and you should also be aware that WP:ABOUTSELF requires that a claim not be unduly self-serving, such as a perfunctory denial contradicted by the weight of WP:RS coverage. Greene is quite clearly a QAnon conspiracy theorist, per sources such as the New York Times. [1] IHateAccounts (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Where are credible references backing up that she is a conspiracy theorist? Unless there are credible references (i.e. not liberal news media/fake news media) acclaiming that she is a conspiracy theorist, that smearing title should be removed as it's a political hack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbenton (talk • contribs) 03:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Wbenton, please see WP:RSP and WP:RSN for what is considered "credible references" on Wikipedia (hint: it doesn't follow your personal opinion.) Elizium23 (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for a list of main sources to use and the outlets which are deprecated, those that should not be used. Wikipedia does use the "fake news" tag to describe the mainstream media. Philip Cross (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2021

Remove the line "Greene founded, grew, and later sold one of the top CrossFit gyms in the U.S." under the section "Early life and education" or re-write in a more neutral tone. The current source appears to be autobiographical and promotional and calling a local business "one of the top X in the U.S." is neither specific in its claim nor encyclopedic in its tone. Wes Kyle (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done modified for WP:NPOV. Elizium23 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2021

Remove reference to this person being a "conspiracy theorist". There is no clear definition of what constitutes the a acceptable conditions of being a conspiracy theorist and therefore this comment is prejudiced. 2601:601:9580:FFB0:996A:F83F:9561:35D0 (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this same edit request has been given multiple times and it’s been denied every time, we have reliable sources for the usage of the term “conspiracy theorist”. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 01:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Footnote [a] shows how several reliable sources describe Greene as an advocate or promoter of various conspiracy theories. TimSmit (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed

A citation is required for the demeaning and baseless claim of conspiracy theorist. Her claim is based on factual evidence from ballot workers who stuffed ballots on video, in her home state. So, any claim otherwise needs a citation, or its slander. Boeing352 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, we do have citations for those (they are not necessary in the lede, per WP:LEADCITE) and it is amply documented that this woman believes a panoply of conspiracy theories. Nobody has disputed that because of the documentary evidence. Elizium23 (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that when someone is so vocal and prolific about promoting these conspiracy theories, she gets so much press about it that it is a significant part of her notability. The lede sentence in a BLP describes why the subject is notable. She is notable for being a politician and she is notable for being a conspiracy theorist, so the moniker is appropriate and WP:DUE. Elizium23 (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2021 (2)

Remove conspiracy theorist from her page Nearyes (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. this section is well-sourced, see Marjorie Taylor Greene#Support for conspiracy theories. Seagull123 Φ 13:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2021 (3)

Remove conspiracy theorist Nearyes (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Sourced and accurate. ValarianB (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

If being a conspiracy theorist in not something important enough to merit someone a Wikipedia Bio in and of itself, it is not and should not be included in the lede. Those of you editors relying on a panoply of wikipedia rules and norms are really just letting your confirmation bias get the better of you. Would a Britannica entry strat like that? Of course not. She should be descrived in the first sentens as a Member of Congress and the current representative of (District) Plenty of room to discuss her fondness for conspiracy theories in the main body. You should be ashamed of letting your political beliefs (no matter how widely such beliefs are held) seep so obviosly into this bio! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:5100:5A:BD0B:9A72:BC4C:40DF (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Please change to correct year

Please change the year from 2020 to 2021 for the last sentence in the first paragraph. "In January 2020, she filed articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden, alleging abuse of power the day after his inauguration.[10]" should be changed to "In January 2021..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonfire80 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done soibangla (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request: republican party

The opening paragraph of the lead should mention that she's a member of the Republican party, as is standard with American house representatives and politicians in general.Shadybabs (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Done Reasonable request pointing to an ommission which has since been fixed. Philip Cross (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

Marjorie Talyor Greene harassed David Hogg (Parkland School shooting survivor) to try and promote gun rights.[2] RT2503 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2021 (2)

Change the only occurrence of 'effected' to 'affected' to correct the spelling error. 2A00:23C5:D288:C000:7D0F:BD9:2141:EC4 (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Already done – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2021

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.

---

Conspiracy theorist should not be a part of her bio info in the first paragraph. That is ridiculously partisan. 75.109.51.51 (talk) 03:31, 5 February 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.

Order of information in lede

@Salix alba: regarding this edit [3], the WP:WEIGHT of coverage clearly indicates Greene being a conspiracy theorist first, and an elected official second, at least for the time being. Also you removed the category "American politician", can you please explain? IHateAccounts (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello @IHateAccounts, please cite other examples of pages for other US Congressmen and Congresswomen where their role as a member of Congress does not come first. Thanks. --Jkowal43 (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Jkowal43

I'm afraid I need to agree with Jkowal43, if for no other reason than WP:IAR. True, she hasn't gotten a lot of news coverage for being a Congresswoman, but that's just because she just became one. It is, however, simply, inherently, a more notable role than conspiracy theorist. It's not close. Even if she is hit by a meteorite immediately before assuming the office, and never does one other thing as Congresswoman, I guarantee her obituaries will say "Congresswoman-elect" before they will say "conspiracy theorist". --GRuban (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

My reason is because of WP:NPOV. It we start with the QAnon part, it makes the article look like it written from left-wing POV, immediately starting with the most damming characterization of her. Ideally, you should be able to read the article and not be able to guess the political leaning of the editors. Starting with the neutral basic information is a step towards that direction.--Salix alba (talk): 23:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Moving Intro Information into Body

In the intro of the article, the following information is listed:

She was one of the 139 representatives who challenged the results of the 2020 US presidential election in Congress on January 7, 2021, the day after the storming of the US Capitol.[2]

According to the NY Times, , there were 147 Republicans that objected to some aspect of the Electoral College election results. Greene voiced a single objection that wasn't sustained by a corresponding Senate response. I can't find a single instance that includes this as an intro in any of the other congressional member pages, even in other freshmen member pages with no political background. Recommend incorporating further in the article in a Congressional Voting or similarly appropriate section.--Jkowal43 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Her business experience seems like a critical part of her life before politics. Adding businesswoman in the opening sentence seems appropriate too. --Jkowal43 (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Heading Update in Political Positions

Under Political Positions, the section titled "Health Care" should be renamed to "COVID-19 Viewpoint" or something like that. This section does not speak to her view on Health Care. Or additional data should be added. --Jkowal43 (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Jkowal43

I changed the header to "COVID-19". To be about "health care", we'd need to add something on her position on Obamacare, at a minimum. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu, isn't COVID-19 about "Health care"? It is standard practice to add such a heading to politicians' BLPs, then we encourage people to add more information of her stance on health care. If we call it "COVID-19" then we're encouraging editors to create new sections. Elizium23 (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, fair point. Sadly, I can't seem to find any RS on her Obamacare stance. That didn't come up in the campaign once? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding Election Result Section

Is there a template to add an Elections section with the 2020 results, and/or a suggestion as where to place in the article? Also can we cite Ballotpedia and use those results? --Jkowal43 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Jkowal43

Ballotpedia may or may not be a reliable source. It's too risky to use, IMHO, not worth it. Elizium23 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Would Georgia state election board results be more appropriate? Also, is there a good template there? --Jkowal43 (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

How about linking to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia#District 14 where the election results are already listed? -- Pemilligan (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Order of Information in Conspiracy Theories Section

Some edits were made today to the structure of the information in the Conspiracy Theory section. Recommend information be re-ordered chronologically. Misleading to put information out of order. --Jkowal43 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist Label?

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.

---

The label has an immediate negative connotation. A definition may help:

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):

Most of her views align with well known published accounts, such as, certain Hunter Biden conduct. Voter fraud claims relate to widely accepts claims not secret plans, even if most are from the right. A new label might settle the objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.113.11 (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Lol using Hunter Biden to suggest she's not a conspiracy theorist isn't going to work. Neither will her belief in false voter fraud claims or QAnon predilections. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of the page. The consensus of reliable sources is that she is a conspiracy theorist. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus about her being a conspiracy theorist from all reliable sources out there. The sources used above are very select few, actually. Lukan27 (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I join the original poster above in that the labelling is problematic and reeks of political bias. Several objections are valid. First, even if M. Greene indeed was peddling for "conspiracy theories", such as a Clinton kill-list, that doesn't make her a "conspiracy theorist" now - you can be an ex-conspiracy theorist. Two, no amount of mass media articles claiming something can make you that something. You're a conspiracy theorist if you are a conspiracy theorist, not because others label you so. You can come up with all the "credible" mass media sources you want, it doesn't change a thing. We wouldn't call her a saint either if scores of "credible" media outlets labelled her so. Third, the term "conspiracy theorist" definitely is way too vague and opportunistic. Usage of the term like this hurts Wikipedia's credibility as a neutral and fair, objective source of information. Fourth, the used sources, such as NCB News's piece doesn't manage to prove beyond reasonable doubt that her alleged account on the American Truth Seekers" website is indeed Marjorie Taylor Greene. Searching for "Marjorie Greene" returns 128 hits in USA. I'm still checking sources, but so far I've seen no solid proof from news outlets that it's actually her work. Please note that I'm not advocating for removal of everything "conspiracy theorist" or Qanon from the page, but there is a severe need for rethinking all this. Lukan27 (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC) — Lukan27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@IHateAccounts Do you care to explain why you add this small comment without signing? You're willing to put this up, but not argue further? Play the ball and not the person. But maybe you can explain why you only edit entries on Parler, Gab, AOC, Proud Boys, Qanon, Project Veritas, Sidney Powell and very related things to the 2020 US election? I suggest that everyone else check IHateAccounts' own list of contributions, and when IHateAccounts made their account. Lukan27 (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)— Lukan27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia is written off coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, not the personal opinions of anonymous internet users. Unless you have a reliable third-party source that unequivocally says she isn't, it would violate our neutral point of view policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There are countless of sources which doesn't label her as a conspiracy theorist. I contest that cherrypicking a few select sources that agree on labelling anyone anything consititutes fair or reasonable handling. And what makes you say that very left-leaning sources like The Guardian and Salon constitutes credible sources? Especially in this case, with Greene being on the right side of the political spectrum, extra caution and consideration is definitely needed. If we merely pick up everything a few news outlets are saying, we risk that Wikipedia becomes an echo chamber for those select news outlets. Surely this is not what we want. Labelling Greene as a conspiracy theorist in the header is clearly breaking with Wikipedia's requirement of a neutral point of view. There is no good reason to have a politically motivated, very vague and pejorative term like "conspiray theorist" in the header. Using negative and derogatory terms like this is conflicting with Wikipedia's requirements of impartial tone, words to watch and bias in sources. Wikipedia is supposed to describe disputes, not actively take sides by uncritically using pejorative terms from biased opponent sources. I feel the need to stress again that I'm not advocating for total removal of anything "conspiracy theory" or Qanon on this entry, but it definitely needs a major do-over. Lukan27 (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)— Lukan27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Perhaps we could make a separate section in the article to discuss her controversies like conspiracy theories. Writing it in the first paragraph of the article and automatically putting that label on her does sound very biased and inappropriate.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:2062:AA7A:84BA:C7CE (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It is in the article. The lead serves to summarize the key points of the article, and her belief in conspiracy theories is a key point. There's nothing biased about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

When looking at the introductory sentence for the rest of the GA Congressional delegation, it usually states that they are a politician, businessman, or some other profession. Her belief in conspiracy theories is not a profession (unless someone thinks otherwise). Does she get paid for these beliefs? I'm sure that there are politicians who are fans of insert favorite sports team or likes to fish and golf, but you wouldn't use this in an introductory sentence. This intro deviates from the rest of the GA congressional delegation intros. Also, what makes her beliefs in these claims different than politicians holding other crazy beliefs? I agree with 2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:2062:AA7A:84BA:C7CE above --Jkowal43 (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If the rest of the Georgia congressional delegation were also described as conspiracy theorists so frequently that it became a significant aspect of their biography, then we'd say so in their articles too. Different people, different coverage, different Wikipedia pages. XOR'easter (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jkowal43 in this statement, there is a clear deviation from the norm. Lukan27 (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)— Lukan27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We go with what RS say, thus if RS do not describe someone as a conspiracy theorist neither do we. We describe what they are notable for, not what they are paid for.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Obvious Conspiracy Theorist is obvious, per multiple reliable sources. If Marjorie Taylor Greene isn't a conspiracy cheorist, then who is? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven @Guy Macon Left-leaning sources like Salon, The Guardian and Washington Post doesn't constitute reliable sources. They're obviously politically biased against Greene, and that must be taken into account. Wikipedia is not an echo chamber for mass media ganging up on people. Lukan27 (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Everything in Marjorie Taylor Greene#Support for conspiracy theories is well-supported by multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia has articles on many conservative politicians who are not conspiracy theorists.

If you want an encyclopedia that rejects reliable sources because they are "left-leaning" you are in luck. Such an encyclopedia exists. It is called Conservapedia. They have an article you can edit at [ https://conservapedia.com/Marjorie_Taylor_Greene ].

Here on Wikipedia we use reliable left-leaning sources and reliable right-leaning sources, and we reject unreliable left-leaning sources and unreliable right-leaning sources.

If you want to claim that a particular source is unreliable, first check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and if it isn't on that list ask a question about it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Such discussions are off-topic on this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian and Salon are quite left-wing and have a severe dislike of Trump and his supporters. This makes these sources unreliable when it comes to writing about Trump and his supporters. Sources may be reliable in general, but that doesn't mean that all their pieces are reliable for everything. Neither shouldn't we blindly believe certain news outlets and their pieces which use extremely loaded labels like "conspiracy theorist", especially when they gang up on someone. We should definitely write that there are news organizations that label her as a "conspiracy theorist", and we should definitely write about her endorsements/talk about all that Qanon stuff, but just taking these sources and their blatant anti-candidate bias for granted is not good practice. Please remember that, as WP:NEWSORG says "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.". Also please remember WP:NEWSORG, WP:YESPOV and MOS:LABEL. Lukan27 (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes they do (see wp:rsp), if you want to challenge their status as RS got to wp:rsn. Why (by the way) would a UK newspaper give a flying Puck about a US politician? As to "mass media echo chamber", well...yes we are, that is the whole point of most of our policies on content, we reflect what the consensus of RS is. One reason is we do not want to fill Wikipedia up with stuff like cellars that do not exist or that murdered children were not in fact killed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If The Guardian doesn't give a flying puck about a US politician, then why are they writing about her? I severely disagree with the statement that Wikipedia should be a mere echo chamber for certain mass media organizations. I believe Wikipedia should be a place for a wide-range of kinds of sources, where we don't blindly copy select sources and their biased labelling of others. Lukan27 (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources here are not rejected or accepted because of their (supposed) political leanings. Aspects of their organization like accuracy, reliability, fact-checking, etc...are measured. ValarianB (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Emphasis on the "supposed", too. USA Today and Axios and Politico are not exactly Bolshevist. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to add that uncritically using select sources from anti-candidate mass media organizations and labelling Greene outright as a "conspiracy theorist", and purporting it as a fact, is provoking a lot of people and is now causing a lot of problematic focus and, how should I put it, less-than-ideal participation. I'm not arguing that we should bow to a Qanon-mob, or any mob for that matter. But given that there has been raised concern about what to do with all this less-than-ideal-participation, and that there's plenty of people who contend, including myself, that outright labelling Greene as a "conspiracy theorist" doesn't constitute fair practice, or is in line with Wikipedia's policies, and I suggest that we all consider defaulting to writing something like Several media organizations have described Greene as a conspiracy theorist. (which is a fact and cannot be reasonably disputed). This is not only more precise and factual, but may cool things down a bit too. Lukan27 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I also want to point out that even if Greene was a "conspiracy theorist" at the time where these media organizations labelled her so, that doesn't necessarily say anything about her being a "conspiracy theorist" now, or later. For all intents and purposes, she could genuinely regret and denounce all "conspiracy theories" from the very day after she was labelled as one. She could go public and annouce that she regrets her belief in "conspiracy theories" and no longer believes in them, and you would (probably) deny it as unreliable, and we can't expect the same anti-candidate media organizations to report that she's no longer a "conspiracy theorist" (why would they?). How long does labelling her a "conspiracy theorist" last (as an alleged fact?). Lukan27 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

First, evasions like "some have described Greene as a conspiracy theorist" are weasel words and generally poor form. Second, Wikipedia is not the place to speculate about people changing their convictions in completely unverifiable ways. If she goes public with a change of belief, we can write about it then, based on how reliable sources document it happening. XOR'easter (talk) 15:21, 25 January 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.

MOS discussion on "Conspiracy Theorist" as a LABEL

Please note that the discussion on this page has now led to a this section on the term "Conspiracy Theorist" on an MOS talk page. If consensus is reached there, it will have an impact on this article's lead section. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

One take on this is that a conspiracy theorist originates the theory, while less original thinkers are "disseminators of conspiracy theories.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

However, conventional definitions include believers in conspiracy theories as "conspiracy theorists", not just their originators. If I wanted to promote my own take, it would be that the term most appropriately applies to active participants in conspiracy theories, that is, those who base their actions on them (whether those are "information operations", Big lies, or other sorts of behaviour). Newimpartial (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be garnering much support over there, so it appears this article is safe. ValarianB (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Frazzledrip

• Marjorie Taylor Greene Believes in Frazzledrip, QAnon’s Wildest Conspiracy Theory --Vice
• https://www.dailydot.com/debug/marjorie-taylor-greene-qanon-frazzledrip/ QAnon congresswoman endorsed ‘Frazzledrip,’ debunked theory of Hillary Clinton eating a baby --Daily Dot
• Marjorie Taylor Greene Supported Clinton Child Murder Conspiracy Theory Before Running for Congress --Newsweek
• Toxic Republican Majorie Taylor Green believes in the insanely stupid frazzledrip conspiracy --Boing Boing
• YouTube’s conspiracy theory crisis, explained --Vox
• Google CEO admits company must better address the spread of conspiracy theories on YouTube --Tech Crunch

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent news

• Video surfaces of Marjorie Taylor Greene confronting Parkland shooting survivor with baseless claims --CNN
• QAnon-promoting congresswoman shown harassing Stoneman Douglas student --Tampa Bay Times
• Channel 3 crew threatened with arrest after asking Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene a question during town hall meeting --WRCB-TV, Chattanooga
• Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s endorsement of conspiracy theories, violence sparks calls for her resignation — again --The Washington Post

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure we need to add every instance of her...behavior..;, a few examples should do.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2021 (2)

Exsult1 (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Marjorie Taylor Greene: I find the article to be incomplete. It seems as if her life begins with her 2020 election to the U.S. House of Representatives, but there are earlier mentions of her being asked to "resign" and it is unclear to me what she would be resigning from.Exsult1 (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Under "False flag and similar claims":

In a 2018 Facebook post found by Media Matters, Greene agreed the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, was an organized "false flag" operation. In another post, she agreed that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was also a false flag operation. In another Facebook post later in 2018 she wrote: "I am told that Nancy Pelosi tells Hillary Clinton several times a month that 'we need another school shooting' in order to persuade the public to want strict gun control."[74][75] A number of shooting survivors, including Fred Guttenberg, David Hogg, and Cameron Kasky, condemned Greene's remarks and demanded her resignation.[76][77] Resign from what? Exsult1 (talk) 17:19, 28 January 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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Misleading quotation

The quoted text about a "space laser" is from news coverage characterizing a Facebook post. It is not actually a quotation from the Facebook post itself. The Facebook post, helpfully reproduced in toto in the purportedly supporting source, nowhere contains that text, nor any occurrence of the phrase "space laser" in fact. The Facebook post does talk about "space solar generators". Uncle G (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed but more can be done on this content. starship.paint (exalt) 15:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is heavy biased against this woman.

NOTAFORUM soibangla (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is obviously written by a left-leaning author and it is bereft of truth and objectivity. Accusing her of being a conspiracy theorist, for example, is a very demeaning description... as is the entire gist of the entire article. Shame on Wikipedia. These liberal biases will be remembered when you periodically ask for contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8101:A830:BDE0:3CAD:533E:D6F2 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC) I identify as a conservative, on the right - and I don't think it is biased against her at all. The article is negative, because it reflects reality and the many outrageous things this woman has done. It says she is a conspiracy theorist because she is a conspiracy theorist. It mentions her support for killing political opponents because that's what she wrote. In short, the reason the article is very negative is because of the continued behavior of the subject, not because of any political bias. Jeppiz (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC) If you had read the second paragraph, you would have read that Greene publicly supports many conspiracy theories, and thus she can be accurately described as a conspiracy theorist. Kestreltail (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC) For the record, acknowledged. Wikipietime (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC) I am apolitical -- I hold both Team Red and Team Blue in equal disdain -- and I assure you that I would treat a left-leaning democrat who is a conspiracy theorist the same. It just happens that QAnon was the first to get a member elected to congress. If Palmer Report ever gets someone elected we will have an article about a democrat conspiracy theorist in congress. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC) I suspect that many who have never donated to WP never will again because of this. Because, you know, it's perfectly normal for a major party nominee to post stuff like this and anyone who thinks there's anything unusual about it can only be a communist. soibangla (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Media Matters for America / Newsweek

@Philip Cross and Soibangla: - you've added on content based one or two of the above two sources P1 P2 P3 S1, but according to WP:RSP, There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America, and Newsweek articles are not generally reliable. We should use more reliable sources. There are already claims of bias and it doesn't make us look good when we don't even follow our own guidelines. starship.paint (exalt) 02:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

MMfA is okay if attributed, which I believe I did. Other sources picked up what MMfA found, but also attributed them, so using the other sources is kinda pointless.soibangla (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Soibangla: - I would disagree that using the other more reliable sources are pointless, because they are an extra layer of editorial judgment. They are able to tell us (1) this story about MTG is important, (2) these specific parts of the story about MTG are important, and (3) this story about MTG is not immediately debunkable. starship.paint (exalt) 03:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I'll address it tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. Goodnight. soibangla (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal life - family

Looks like she has three children, never mentioned in the personal life section, which focuses mainly on her places of residence. Since the page is extended-confirmed protected, I would but cannot add in the following to the last paragraph, referencing https://greene.house.gov/about (which should be archived): Greene and her husband have three children, Lauren, Taylor, and Derek. Cookieo131 (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

So, why do we need to mention this?Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

In an article intended to provide biographical information, especially one comprehensive enough to have multiple sections and subsections, mentioning something as major as them being a parent should not be left out of a Personal Life section. If the article did not have a Personal Life section, then there might not be a place for it - but clearly there is one, which lists her residence, her father, her husband, two prior residences, and her religion. Do I really need to justify a single sentence summing up such a major part of her life in a biographical article? Mentioning their names is probably unnecessary, and I wouldn't object to omitting that. Cookieo131 (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

We can mention it, we just do not need to name them.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please, don't name them. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Most famous people, however, do name their children and their former spouses... and she has listed this information on many other public pages, among them https://gopyoungguns2020.com/marjorie-taylor-greene/ and https://greene.house.gov/about so I don't see why this informaton should be excluded if she prefers to include it. Bitterraccoon (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)bitterraccoon

I've now added that detail about three children, but didn't name them. Critical Chris (talk) 01:39, 5 Febuary 2021 (UTC)

Expansion possibilities

It seems that there's more to be had on various topics, little bits here and there, such as analysis concluding that since the subject is a first-term Representative she is unaffected by the corporate donation freeze.

• Newhauser, Daniel (2021-01-28). "Big Campaign Donors Stand By Election Denier Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene". Georgia Public Broadcasting. (also on the Georgia Recorder)
• Fowler, Stephen (2021-01-29). "Controversy, Conspiracies And Conflict Usher Marjorie Taylor Greene Into Congress". Georgia Public Broadcasting.

Uncle G (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

One-sidedness

This article's treatment of the event where a reporter was expelled from a town hall meeting is a lot more one-sided than the reportage that it is based upon. Sources actually present the other side of the coin, that although the reporter had been invited and credentialed, the subject and her staff hadn't intended to hold a press conference, and considered the reporter's behaviour to be disruptive. That's a fairer treatment than this article has at the moment. I cannot offhand think of a way to address this without making the article devote a lot of words to one small incident. But we definitely need a short sentence to make the article fairer as it stands. Uncle G (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thinking about it, one possibility, since it isn't in the article yet, is folding this into a paragraph on the subject's relationship with the press and the "to the mob" statement. I don't know how much there is to be had on that, though. Uncle G (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we see some of these sources?Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Washington times, Washington Post, Associated Press all quote one Nick Dyer. But you can just read the one already cited. The other point of view, "not a press conference", is in that, too. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
      • So no then RS do not say it, they report a member of Greenes staff saying it. So we could say "according to a member of Greenes staff...".Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I said "present the other side of the coin", which they very much do do, unlike the article at present. But there's a further problem with what's written in this article, it turns out. Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

… and factual inaccuracy

"when she tried to ask a question at a town hall event about a video in which Greene is seen harassing David Hogg"

It turns out that even the one-sided content taking only part of the source reportage is wrong. In M. Aldis' own reporting (available here) the question was going to be about "past posts on Facebook showing support for violence against Democrats in Congress", and as well as the aforementioned sources her own report shows that she got 13 words into it, not even to the point of saying what posts where being asked about, before being interrupted and cut off. So she wasn't trying to ask a question about David Hogg, and wasn't threatened for the subject of the question because she didn't get as far as even finishing the question. She was threatened for just trying ask a question at all; which was not even going to be about David Hogg, according to her. And we have the Washington Post telling us that Greene didn't listen to the question, and CBS News telling us that in Aldis' own words on Twitter "I tried to ask a question". Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we can change it to "when she tried to ask a question at a town hall event about videos in which Greene is seen supporting violence against democratic, according to Aldis".Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2021

Suggest the sentence saying Greene opposes abortion is poorly written and needs updating/expansion, esp. as no one is FOR abortion and recent events have made her position very clear. https://greene.house.gov/media/press-releases/congresswoman-marjorie-taylor-greene-continues-her-mission-end-abortion Gitoutover (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please state what changes you made in a "change X to Y" format - the article doesn't say she's "for abortion" so I'm not sure what you mean? If the section is going to be changed though, it'll ideally need to be done with secondary sources, not press releases as you've linked to (although such primary sources can be used for stating what the person says about themselves). Seagull123 Φ 21:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Painful Obvious Anti-Candidate Bias

The anti-candidate bias of this Wikipedia entry is painfully obvious, violating well over half a dozen major fundamental principles of Wikipedia, not the least of which is WP:NPOV, primarily via that sneakiest form of lying: Telling on part of the truth. Wikipedia is not an acceptable form on which to wage campaign wars through disinformation, misinformation and heavily biased slander/defamation. This requires the immediate attention of objective editors.Clepsydrae (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOTFORUM. The ridiculous accusations you have made are without merit. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. However, however, having been involved with Wikipedia for more than a decade, I am thoroughly familiar with all the material to which you linked, including the WP:NPOV link I posted myself. If you're looking for a link war, please find a message forum. My comments regarding the heavy anti-candidate bias replete throughout this "article" stand as is.Clepsydrae (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

PS: You have a great link on you talk page, Bradv, and I'm reposting it here for your consideration and the consideration of others: How to write a great article. Clepsydrae (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have actual, specific things to say about content, say them. Vague rants claiming "heavy bias" from someone who believes that wikipedia needs to have a propaganda page with supposed "BLM criminal activity" calling it "a global and very well-known organization purporting to be "non-violent" [4] are not something likely to be taken seriously. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a misconception that "neutrality" means that the subject must be presented in a neutral way. This is not the case. "Neutrality" means that we cover the good and the bad of the subject in line with how it is covered in the reliable sources. So, this biography has a lot of negativity to it, but that's only a problem if it is not in line with the sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

What changes would you like to see made? Also, please try to argue in good faith. Even if you disagree with the content of the article, I'm not aware of anyone trying to spread disinformation/misinformation, and the content of this article is not defamatory or libelous. What specific aspects of the article do you object to? Jacoby531 (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You will always find though that if someone is falsely labelled as "far right", as is the case here, most people take that to mean fascist, and arguments will follow - rightly so. Greene is certainly not a fascist. This can be an issue on wikipedia. Even if you can find a dozen sources to say 2+2=5 if you put that, people will object. I actually think much of the rest isn't too bad, it probably gives undue weight to some off-hand comments years ago about conspiracy theories but that is debateable and I don't have a dog in this fight. However to call her far-right is simply a falsehood and as long as it remains you'll find people, whether or not they understand all the complex rules of wikipedia, will fight about it because it's untrue. That's actually a welcome thing, a strength of the wikipedia community - wikipedia should aspire to the truth, verified by sources, not an untruth that can find some sources. The same thing has played out on Ann Coulter's page and the false far-right description is now removed - though only after a solid year of endless and, in the end, pointless arguments - as likewise those same arguments will play out here too. "Far right" is not very right wing, or extremely conservative or hard right or anything like that, it's a specific thing in politics, it is fascism. Greene is not a fascist. Anything else is just sophistry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:986:EB00:4C7E:C706:4220:2F45 (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The WP:WEIGHT of Reliable Sources is clear, Greene is definitely Far-right. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Pease re-read my comment. I wasn't arguing about what this or that source says and how that they can be used to support a point on wikipedia - indeed I addressed that exact point so you have obviously misunderstood. My point is this woman is not a fascist so not, by the way 99.99% of native English speakers use the term, "far right". So you are right in the first part of your assertion (ie that you can find sources saying something) but totally wrong in the second part of your assertion, and that is where the problem is. I was simply explaining why this argument will run and run on here - just as people used the tactics you are suggesting to falsely label Ann Coulter as "far right" - in that case it was over 12 months of pointless bickering before wikiedpia had to, as indeed is right, plump for reality over what this or that source says and indeed has had to block some users from trying to change it back. I devoted a lot of time and energy on that case as wikipedia should publish the truth and will leave it to others to put this article right. The same, as it happens, will happen with this article sooner or later - unless, in which case I would change my attitude of course, Greene decides to actually become far-right, but so far she has not done so, is not a member of any fascist group, has in no election stood on a platform or published election literature advocating anything remotely close to fascism. She is a conservative, one could indeed say very conservative/hard right. But it's false, as of February 2021, to say she is fascist or "far right". Every now an then we get the equivalent (but on the other side) people trying to change Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's article to list her as a communist - thankfully they are stopped there, we must however be even handed and not allow wikipedia to smear conservatives either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:986:EB00:BC90:4F67:7832:2DA1 (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid you will not have much luck with the argument that we should publish what is "true" rather than what is supported by reliable sources. Please see WP:TRUTH. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The anti- candidate bias is very evident. This article does not align with other congressmen and congresswomen articles Jkowal43 (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with the general points above, that there is a clear case of anti-candidate bias in this entry. Lukan27 (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The opening, "An American politician, businesswoman, and conspiracy theorist," is really all anyone needs to read to see the obvious bias in this article.Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, facts don't care about feelings, as some are fond of saying. If reliable sources consistently and routinely describe her as a conspiracy theorist, then the article reflects that. ValarianB (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a fact that Marjorie T. Greene is a conspiracy theorist. However, it's an undeniable fact that select media organizations label her as a "conspiracy theorist". Further, sources like The Guardian and Salon are not reliable sources, and reliable sources can be biased on certain points. It's very clear here that these media organizations against Greene, and we should not blindly fall for that. Lukan27 (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia considers both to be reliable, though Political should be used with attribution, i.e. "...according to Politico...". The conspiracy theorist text is supported by everything from Axios to The Times of Israel to USA Today. This is likely not an argument you're going to win, if you insist on attacking the sourcing. ValarianB (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Lukan27 has been banned from discussing politics. Let's not encourage him/her. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, RS say she is a conspiracy theorist. One way to not be labeled a conspiracy theorist is to (as most polticans do) not pedal conspiracy theories. The same with "Far right", she pedals racist and white supremacist tropes. If anyone has any RS that say she is not far right or a conspiracy theorist I might reconsider.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The article simply states the truth about Ms. Greene. Her supporters should be glad that she's a racist white suprematicist antisemitic insurrectionist who wants to put a bullet in the heads of American leaders--else why do they support her?

This article is no more biased than the article on Hitler. If people find the facts about Hitler or Greene unpleasant, that's their own judgment. The bias is entirely on the part of those who would deny, hide, or distort the facts just because they don't want them to be stated. Claims that the article is biased, that the editors are not objective, that Greene is not a conspiracy theorist, that the reliable sources are not reliable ... are not made in good faith. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I came across this article having seen a post on the Help Desk. I have no great knowledge of US politics, being an Englishman living in UK ,but having read parts of this article and some of the references picked at random I am satisfied that Ms Greene's views are repulsive and the srticle is not generally biased against her. However some of the references given do not mention her views on the subjects said to be related to them.in the article. For instance in ref 22 her views were reported on abortion but ref 59 so far as I could see contained no mention of abortion or other forms of family planning..Ref 161 made no mention of her views on gun laws. nor did 62 although 63 did. Can someone with the time check the references out? I am sure much matches up but some will not.Spinney Hill (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Cite 59 is used for a claim about guns and a claim about the insurrection, it is not (as far as I can tell) used to say anything about abortion. As to the rest, I will wait to see your response to this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The Ref is now 57. Did I get the number wrong? Or has there been some alteration in the numbers as a result of the editing since I first saw the article? It may well be cited somewhere else for which it is appropriate but it is cited in the section on abortion.Spinney Hill (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

What we say "she indicated her support for defunding Planned Parenthood", what the source says "Greene laid out some of her priorities for Congress: stopping socialism, defunding Planned Parenthood", we quote it almost word for word.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I can’t speak as eloquently as the author, but suffice it to say; If you cannot see your bias (as in the opening paragraph) then your blind. Wikipedia is not about being a ‘hit piece’ about anyone. You are doing great damage to kids who come here for facts, not your opinions. Why can’t you just leave her at ‘A conservative politician’ instead of your ‘far-right’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ assertions ?

So I take it your without fault ? I’ll say it again; You are absolutely doing damage to kids who come here for facts not opines. You know damn well what you wrote and why you wrote it. GTO3DEUCES (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Complete Bias

This entry is completely biased and doesn’t give an objective view on her as a congresswoman. Jkowal43 (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jkowal43: The page reflects the WP:WEIGHT of coverage in reliable sources. If you have specific wording you contest, please provide the specific changes you would like to see made along with WP:RS citations to support your proposed wording. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Jkowal43, can you be more specific please. We need to know action items before we can evaluate your claim. Elizium23 (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Congresswoman has dis-avowed any conspiracy theories in in-person interviews. When trying to cite these articles (Foxnews), edits get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkowal43 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Once again, Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies is an essay you should read, and you should also be aware that WP:ABOUTSELF requires that a claim not be unduly self-serving, such as a perfunctory denial contradicted by the weight of WP:RS coverage. Greene is quite clearly a QAnon conspiracy theorist, per sources such as the New York Times.[5] Fox News, even if the interview were not subject to the additional burden of WP:ABOUTSELF, is not considered reliable for citations regarding politics. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, ABOUTSELF only applies to SPS, not to RS like Fox News. Elizium23 (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent Fox News' RSP status. It is yellow. It can be used with caution. There is nothing wrong with Jkowal43 citing a claim about herself in an interview. Fox News is reliable for that statement of fact. Is it on video? Elizium23 (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: WP:ABOUTSELF also applies to statements made by subjects in interviews, which are not fact-checked or put through an editorial standards process; any such claims made in interviews bear the burden of being checked to ensure they are neither unduly self-serving or WP:EXCEPTIONAL. And please review WP:RSP, Fox News is not "green" (or "considered generally reliable") in the realms of science or politics. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

We aren't proposing that the article says that Greene no longer believes conspiracy theories. We're proposing that it records that she denied believing in them. Fox News is reliable for this statement of fact, that Green made a statement. All we're doing is recording her statement, we're not making a truth judgement about the veracity. There is no issue whatsoever that would be covered by ABOUTSELF that would prevent our use of the fact that she made a statement to the public. Elizium23 (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth or on my keyboard. Did I say it's "green"? Nope. Elizium23 (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts So, sources like very leftist The Guardian and Salon is considered reliable, but Fox News isn't? How convenient. Lukan27 (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Jkowal43, while I agree that a Fox News interview is reliable for her statements about herself, let's not blow them out of proportion. If other RS support the fact that she condoned conspiracy theories, then the "conspiracy theorist" moniker is accurate, and you have no right to remove it simply because she denied it once in public. We would need more substantive evidence than that. I suggest you build on things already in the article. It is WP:DUE that she has issued a denial, so that should be included in the article. But don't try to rework it to erase her past as supported by other RS. Elizium23 (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted in the article, except that introduction was changed. Tried re-working the article to state that she previously adhered to these stances, but has since denied them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkowal43 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The first problem for Jkowal43's claim is that while they try to cite two non-RS Fox News pieces from late August 2020, the coverage of Greene's status as a conspiracy theorist in WP:RS is solid much past that point; the New York Times article I linked is from November 2020. The second problem for Jkowal43's claim is that even if we do take her WP:MANDY denial of being a QAnon conspiracy theorist at face value (and it appears WP:RS don't so we shouldn't either), her status is not limited merely to QAnon; she also supports anti-semitic conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories about a mass shooting in Las Vegas, islamophobic conspiracy theories directed at her fellow congressional representatives, 9/11 conspiracy theories, and more. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I've moved some bits out of the lede paragraph as WP:UNDUE for such a short lede. It's already quite prominent in the opening sentence. I hope that the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV satisfies you for the RS which is cited for her own statement about herself in a public interview. Elizium23 (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

But we don't need to accept her denial at "face value" and nobody is suggesting that we should. We simply report her statement with attribution and move on. It is neither right nor wrong. Elizium23 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: I feel that it's difficult to summarize her career as a congresswoman when she has only held office since 3 January (9 days). I feel that the WP:DUEWEIGHT argument is valid, and that the lead could have more about her election campaign (particularly running unopposed and never having held office before), stated political views, and conspiracy theorist background. (Although it's a short article so keep it concise.) When she has written close to five dozen articles for a conspiracy theorist website, that's clearly a significant part of her life. Her denial of being a conspiracy theorist (or that she no longer discusses conspiracy theories?) doesn't seem lead-worthy against the overwhelming weight of sources to the contrary. I also agree with the advice to work on the body of the article and adjust the lead only to reflect the stable body. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks to the vandalism there are now TWO problems going on.

1. - listing her as a "QAnon Conspiracy Theorist" is improperly limiting as a qualifier. As pointed out above, and detailed in the "Support for conspiracy theories" section, QAnon is but one of many conspiracy theories she promotes.
2. - The wording "In August 2020, Greene told Fox News that she no longer discusses conspiracy theories.[23]" - THIS IS REDUNDANT to the wording "When Greene stood for the House of Representatives in 2020, she distanced herself from the conspiracy theory and rejected the label of "QAnon candidate".[23]" which is already in the first paragraph.

I highly recommend that either @Jkowal43: revert themselves, or @Elizium23: revert these inappropriate edits that damage the article. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

How is adding sourced statements, provided in an in person interview to a major News organization, about her positions “vandalism”? Riddle me that. Jkowal43 (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You inserted misspellings and irrelevant content duplication to citations already made, and tried to WP:POVPUSH the lede. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Please cite which misspellings. Also, please cease reverting changes to other pages that I have improved and edited as well, by claiming "misspellings" and "vandalism". This doesn't seem to be taking place in good faith. Thanks. Also, I concur with @Elizium23 on her position on this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkowal43 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"She has previosuly expressed"[6]

And I have not reverted any "improvements" you made to other pages, unless you have other accounts? I reverted [7] because it was already correctly represented by the CBS source and an invalid removal, though I am now adding a Yahoo News sourcing specifically to that as well just to be clear and provide a text source since the other was video. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for adding/updating that other link, @IHateAccounts. Much appreciated. I hope you continue to add links to other pages that I will be working on too.  :-)

Let's get back on topic. I still highly suggest you revert your inappropriate WP:3RR (5th revert) violation from yesterday. It did nothing but harm to the article. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: I don't believe that Jkowal43 will be able to revert, because of the extended-confirmed protection that's been placed on the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I wasn't aware of that, they were able to edit after the initial protection yesterday. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the last editor of this article. Other editors have made changes since then and I defer to them, including @Elizium23, and their assessments. The article has been improved since my edits. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkowal43 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jkowal43: Only one editor has made an edit[8], and they changed an order of wording which I am about to question them on in a new talk section shortly. You are in violation of WP:3RR and should revert the changes you made, manually if needed. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Completely biased individuals who make these sorts of claims are incapable of determining what is objective. We see this sort of nonsense from bad actors all over Wikipedia. While we're supposed to assume good faith, "This article is biased!!11!1" is firm proof that the person writing it lacks that. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you tell this entire page was written by a leftist??? (Chippowell (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC))

Well unless we are all socks, not not "A leftist". And read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is political bias in this article. I looked at the Maxine Waters article and notice she is not called far=left. There is a stark difference in how the two articles are presented. Furthermore, Marjorie Taylor Greene has renounced many of the beliefs of her youth. She is certainly not a racism or a white supremacist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaska Logs (talk • contribs) 12:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alaska Logs: firstly you should take a look at WP:MANDY. Looking at the article, most of her beliefs aren't from her "youth" at all, but from the last few years. The article does not call her a racist or a white supremist, only stating that she has expressed views that are racist. And most sources do not designate Walters as far left, so neither do we.

If there are certain areas of political bias you would like to address (on any page on Wikipedia) please propose them and they will ba taken into consideration. However, unless you are more specific about what needs to be changed, this discussion can not go much further as I don't quite see where your problem lies (and am therefore unable to fix it).
SSSB (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Left wing activists are the editors of this page, possibly paid to do so, this is par for the course for Wikipedia and it is why Colleges tell their students to NEVER use Wiki as a source. It's biased and activist groups [paid or otherwise] use it to push their POV, cherry picking their sources while ignoring those that contradict their POV. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:A51C:21F9:9C66:49A0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not left wing and I don't see a problem with it. Please refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that the writers of this article are intentional biased. Such comments are likely to result in you being ignored. Instead of complaining about the page it would be more helpful if you suggested improvements. You accuse the article of cherry-picking sources, which sources do you suggest should be used.
SSSB (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If she is introduced as a "far-right" politician, then AOC's article should introduce her as "far left," and Ilhan Omar's article should introduce her as "anti-Semitic." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.14.192.58 (talk) 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If you have substantial reliable sourcing to support that the two are commonly referred to as such, feel free to make such a suggestion on their respective article talk pages. But in the meantime you may wish to review WP:OTHERCONTENT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Author - You are exactly what the problem is in these United States. You are indoctrinating people with your bias. Honestly, it’s quite sickening. I take it your a college professor ? GTO3DEUCES (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Author - I find it inconceivable that you don’t see the utter bias in your writings. I’ve noticed that every time someone calls you out on it you respond with the same reply. That unto itself is telling; Anyone with a shred of common sense can tell that the article should lead with just ‘An American Politician’.

If you’re so unbiased as you claim to be, then change the article to be plain facts. Anyone who picks up an old set of book Encyclopedias, would never see such wording. GTO3DEUCES (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Modify "she is a Christian" to "she claims she is a Christian" until there is actual proof

Modify "she is a Christian" to "she claims she is a Christian" until there is actual proof — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:c900:4f90:19fb:5b57:daea:617e (talk • contribs)

The text in question has been removed by Drmies. XOR'easter (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That is correct. There's Christian and acting like a Christian, that's one problem, but the whole thing is also kind of trivial. Besides, what flavor are we talking about? Drmies (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, the source used to support the statement looked to be a random website. The article can in principle talk about her religion, but it would be far better to have higher-quality sources that provide actual specifics (e.g., which churches she has attended). XOR'easter (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies Out of curiosity, would you say the same about the label "conspiracy theorist"? Is there a difference between acting like a conspiracy theorist and actually being one? Lukan27 (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Why not? Lukan27 (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Lukan27 has been banned from discussing politics. Let's not encourage him/her. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that the article is also in Category:Christians from Georgia (U.S. state). I don't personally find the previous "She is Christian" to be very useful in the article without more context. —PaleoNeonate – 17:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Cited where requested. --GRuban (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This is better as the statement even includes why it's important (that she's notable for sharing it). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 17:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The wording "Greene is an Evangelical Christian, baptized in 2011 in an Atlanta suburb, and often speaks about her faith" seems fine to me although I didn't check the source. We definitely should not say "Greene claims she is an Evangelical Christian". That's not now religion or Wikipedia works. Identifies as would be mildly better, still not necessary. If there is significant dispute over a particular individuals religious identification as reported on in reliable sources, we can can report that. I do agree "she is a Christian" seems fairly useless. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

How do you prove you're Christian? Lukan27 (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue here, the issue was one of Wikipedia:Verifiability, in other words, are there Wikipedia:Reliable sources that said she was a Christian? Yes, there were. I added one to the article. Done. I'm sure she is also a hundred other things, but we only write what Wikipedia:Reliable sources write about her. --GRuban (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

GRuban, I didn't see what you added, but I do like Nil Einne's suggestion. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

[9] --GRuban (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I should clarify since my wording above is a bit confusing. What I was trying to say above is 'she identifies as" would be mildly, okay thinking more I'd say significantly better than "she claims". I think "she is" is the best wording. I wouldn't be opposed to changing to to identifies if other editors feel that strongly about it, but IMO it's an unnecessary qualifier. Nil Einne (talk)

No one can prove she's a Christian or not. To say she "claims to be a Christian" would be making the assumption (as editors of Wikipedia) that she may not be one, which would violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Add Views on LGBTQ rights, specifically trans rights

I request a section in her political positions be made for her view on LGBTQ rights. Majorie Greene has recently come out in support of a transphobic act to “protect” “biological woman” from “biological males” in sports. The History Nerd5 (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source suggestions about this welcome, without them we can't add anything. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Moreover (I have to say) it has to be really some long good RS as this is a BLP issue, and we have to be very careful how we word it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

To add to the above good answers, it seems likely Greene is going to do and say a number of controversial things over the next two years or more. There's probably no point even bringing them up here until you have RS. While it can sometimes be useful to bring things up to ask for help finding RS, in this case it probably won't be. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Strange as she’s herself is transgender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:860B:1EF0:3102:CE9E:F134:6CEE (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I would be in favor of starting a section regarding her LGBTQ views, as long as there are credible sources and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If you are going to attack Majorie Green and I'm not suggesting for one moment that you should not, just because one supports such an act does not make them necessarily transphobic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.67 (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Marjorie Taylor Greene indicated support for executing prominent Democrats in 2018 and 2019 before running for Congress

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-democrats-violence/index.html

"Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene repeatedly indicated support for executing prominent Democratic politicians in 2018 and 2019 before being elected to Congress, a CNN KFile review of hundreds of posts and comments from Greene's Facebook page shows.Greene, who represents Georgia's 14th Congressional District, frequently posted far-right extremist and debunked conspiracy theories on her page, including the baseless QAnon conspiracy which casts former President Donald Trump in an imagined battle against a sinister cabal of Democrats and celebrities who abuse children. In one post, from January 2019, Greene liked a comment that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this would be notable to add but we also have to be sensitive to to the biographies of living persons policy. It appears several reliable sources have covered this in detail, and we could probably add this, but I'm not very experienced with BLP. twink central (talk)

When reporting controversial content about a living person, I like the see at least three reliable secondary sources cover it (I don't count sources that re-post articles from other sources).

Here are three sources:

• Marjorie Taylor Greene indicated support for executing prominent Democrats in 2018 and 2019 before running for Congress --Source: CNN
• Marjorie Taylor Greene Signaled Approval For Executing Top Democrats Before Seeking Office --Source: Forbes
• Marjorie Taylor Greene expressed support on Facebook for violence against Democrats --Source: The Hill

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Here is another: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene endorsed the execution of Democrats in old Facebook posts, report says --Source: The Stamford Advocate'

That's plenty. I say go ahead and add it to the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It's already there. soibangla (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Has there been a discussion on the current wording of this sentence? "Her Facebook account has expressed support for executing prominent Democratic politicians.[11]" The sources say that she "indicated support" or "expressed support" or "signaled approval" for this idea/action essentially through or using Facebook, not that her Facebook account expressed anything on its own (the current wording implies some agency on the part of her Facebook account). I suggest considering rewording this to closer match the meaning conveyed in the sources, unless the purpose of this sentence is to distance her from her Facebook activity (as it currently does).NotThatKindOfDr (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Discrepancy between this article and articles about Democrat politicians

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.

---

Most Democrat politicians promote the far-left "systemic racism" conspiracy theory and the racist conspiracy theory that white people have "privilege," but Wikipedia doesn't call them conspiracy theorists in the beginning of their articles. Either treat both sides the same, or remove the "conspiracy theorist" description. "Conspiracy theorist" is not a defining description of her, unlike say Alex Jones or David Icke. Her primary job description is businesswoman and politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandycorot (talk • contribs) 11:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Which RS make these claims?Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 31 January 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.

"Greene linked Hillary Clinton to pedophilia and human sacrifice"

This statement means that Greene has established a definite link. If this is not factual - backed by evidence - it is a potentially libellous claim and should not be supported by Wikipedia unless it intends to enter the murky and potentially litigious world of social media and unsupported claims about living people.

Perhaps the statement should be changed to: "Green has claimed links between Hillary Clinton, paedophilia and human sacrifice, however such claims are unsubstantiated". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.155.136 (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia only reports what is in reliable sources. Go to The New Yorker, get them to retract the claim, and then come back here.

" Marjorie Taylor Greene, an entrepreneur who moved to the district only recently and who has, in the past, expressed a belief in QAnon, a sprawling set of delusional notions centered on the idea that President Trump is leading a fight against a 'deep state' engaged in child sex trafficking, cannibalism, and Satan worship. Greene, who campaigns with a sort of aggro cheerfulness, has linked Hillary Clinton to pedophilia and human sacrifice and suggested that Barack Obama plotted to kill a Democratic operative with the help of MS-13. She described the 2018 midterms, which featured the victorious candidacies of Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, as 'an Islamic invasion of our government.' Greene has also said that Americans now have 'a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take this global cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles out.' " Source: The New Yorker

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the distinction between having linked and having claimed that there is a link. It is common in journalism for a publisher to use this imprecise language in a way that is accepted to distance themself from a claim. However, in standard language this distinction does not exist and to state that a person 'has linked' means that a link has been indisputably established. An encyclopaedia has a responsibility to distance itself from unsubstantiated claim explicitly, not by replying on a journalistic convention (since it is not a journal). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.182.231 (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with 86 on this one. "Has linked" can be interpreted to mean that she has drawn a link between Clinton and these things (even if no such connection exists), or that she has definitively established the existence of this connection. It seems pretty clear that the New Yorker means the former (especially with the parallelism in "suggested" in the next clause), but we probably ought to be a bit more precise. I would support "claimed links" or similar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not unreasonable, but I have a strong preference for sticking to what is in the sources rather than having Wikipedia editors interpret and modify what the sources say. The problem with "It seems pretty clear that..." is that I am in full agreement with what seems clear to GorillaWarfare, but completely disagree with what seems completely clear to the constant stream of IP editors that keep posting to this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I would not support "claimed links" but would favor "says there are links between..." Elizium23 (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Words can take on different connotations according to context. Since the New Yorker article says that Green "expressed a belief in QAnon, a sprawling set of delusional notions (my emphasis)" that Democrats engaged in crimes, then it's clear that her allegations are delusional. Without that context however it is not. While magazine writers aim to write elegantly, we should aim to be precise at the expenses of elegance. TFD (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with 86, GW, TFD, that it's pretty common (and usually expected) that Wikipedia editors summarize sources to achieve encyclopedic precision. If we were restricted only to slavishly copying exact language used by sources we end up with lots of sensational-sounding shorthanded prose. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ruth Bader Ginsberg conspiracy theory

https://www.mediamatters.org/supreme-court/marjorie-taylor-greene-2019-suggested-ruth-bader-ginsburg-was-replaced-body-double

Another one of the conspiracy theories she has voiced, this time on a pro-Trump website streaming program. Should it be placed on the wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2750:1B10:7108:DD7F:7819:1222 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that mention this? See WP:RSP#Media Matters for America: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America." GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

In this case, we have a lot of reliable sources that cite the multiple reports from media matters, and whenever i have been able to find the primary source and read Marjorie Taylor Greene's own words, media matters appears to have reported it accurately.

Here is what appears to have happened; media matters seems to have been saving her posts on Twitter, Facebook, American Truth Seekers, etc.. as they occurred. In the case of American Truth Seekers you can find the original posts using the wayback machine. In the case of Twitter and Facebook she has deleted things she wrote, some sources mad copies of some of the posts and published material about them, but media matters appears to have saved all of them as they happened.

So, what should we do with this situation? If a reliable source cites media matters I say no problem, go ahead and use it. But what about things that are reported in media matters but not cited elsewhere? Do we leave them out because of the RSNB discussion? Use them because media matters appears to be reliable on the subject of deleted Marjorie Taylor Greene posts? Or should I bring this up on RSNB and see what the consensus is for this specific use? I am OK with whatever the consensus is on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: what about things that are reported in media matters but not cited elsewhere? - leave it out because RS don't judge those things important. Accepting these things would just prove that we are indeed biased when we can't follow our own guidelines on what are the best sources to use. We should just stick to the green sources. starship.paint (exalt) 15:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we should only include statements based on MMfA reporting if they are also reported in green sources. I don't think MMfA alone is enough to establish that something is worth including. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Heads up

This isn't for adding to the article, but to give everyone a heads up that this page may be seeing a lot more disruption soon.

• Democrats look to make Marjorie Taylor Greene the face of GOP

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Also in The Hill: McConnell says Taylor Greene's embrace of conspiracy theories a 'cancer' to GOP, country. XOR'easter (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we know this article is a target for disruption and that it's not likely to go away any time soon. Thankfully, extended confirmed protection and discretionary sanctions are in place. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yea we definitely need protection for this page. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Mitch McConnell calls her a cancer of the Republican Party

According to CBS news Mitch McConnell denounced newly elected Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene on Monday, calling the far-right Georgia Republican's embrace of conspiracy theories and "loony lies" a "cancer for the Republican Party." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.116.105 (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Well he did not in fact name her.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If he didn't name her it would be inappropriate to add McConnell's comment. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• " 'Loony lies and conspiracy theories are cancer for the Republican Party and our country, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday after being questioned about Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. 'Somebody who’s suggested that perhaps no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that horrifying school shootings were pre-staged, and that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr.’s airplane is not living in reality, McConnell said. McConnell, R-Ky., did not mention Greene by name, but his statement, which was first reported by The Hill, was released after he was asked about the controversial freshman lawmaker. " Source: NBC News
• "Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell denounced newly elected Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene on Monday, calling the far-right Georgia Republican's embrace of conspiracy theories and 'loony lies' a 'cancer for the Republican Party.' 'Somebody who's suggested that perhaps no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that horrifying school shootings were pre-staged, and that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr.'s airplane is not living in reality,' said McConnell, of Kentucky, referring to a handful of conspiracy theories that Greene has publicized in the past." Source: CBS News
• "Greene responded on Twitter, writing that 'the real cancer for the Republican Party is weak Republicans who only know how to lose gracefully. This is why we are losing our country.' — Marjorie Taylor Greene (@mtgreenee) February 2, 2021" Source: The Hill

Maybe McConnell was talking about some other republican in congress who thinks no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that school shootings were pre-staged, that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr.’s airplane, and who responded to McConnell's comments on Twitter. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Mitch McConnell said what he said in response to a question about her. No one else in congress congress thinks that "no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11," "that school shootings were pre-staged," "that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr.’s airplane" - is that not enough? 2600:8802:2701:64E0:F030:3569:6974:4CC3 (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

'antisemitism'

It's a little ridiculous to accuse her of antisemitism for saying George Soros (yes a jew) is a Nazi. Surely she is using nazi as an epithet and general insult as the 'conspiracy' regarding Soros is that he sold his own people out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.222.132 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Per the source, "Marjorie Taylor Greene ... called George Soros, a Jewish Democratic megadonor, a Nazi". It and the AP News source both support that she believes the conspiracy theory that Soros collaborated with Nazis.

Regarding the antisemitism descriptor, Wikipedia articles reflect what reliable sources say, and if reliable sources describe her as antisemitic, so too do we. It's worth noting that the RS do not appear to be basing this descriptor solely on her comment about Soros, but on a handful of things, including sharing white genocide conspiracy theory content and spreading conspiracy theories about the Rothschilds. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Changes to the lede.

The current lede has several issues:

1. Immediately labeling Greene as "far-light". Ideology is not a confirmed fact, but an interpretation of an individual's views. For example, Donald Trump's article does not call him a "populist, protectionist, isolationist and nationalist", but says this is how his positions are described.

2. Indicating that one of Greene's professions is a "conspiracy theorist". While there are verifiable sources confirming Greene's support for conspiracy theories, "conspiracy theorist" is not one of her professional occupations. This is why Trump is not labeled a "conspiracy theorist" in his lede and attempts to add this descriptor have been removed.

3. A confused timeline that jumps back and forth between Greene's actions since taking office and her actions before taking office.

4. Excessive details that can be condensed while retaining the same general information. The important information is that she has supported conspiracy theories and made other controversial actions. We do not need to list every single conspiracy theory she supports and whose execution she advocated for. That is what the body of the article is for.

5. No reference to the 2021 United States Electoral College vote count, which is when Greene challenged the election results, no explanation of what results she was directly challenging - the electoral votes won by Joe Biden in his victory over Trump - and no mention of the fact that her actions were part of an aggressive effort to overturn the election. There is also no mention of her challenge not being successful.

6. Instead of the 2021 United States Electoral College vote count, the lede references the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, which is not directly connected to her. What is directly connected to her is the vote count - the event that she was directly involved in and took the action referenced.

7. Missing context surrounding Greene's actions against the election and Biden. The lede never explicitly states that Trump was the incumbent president from her party who was defeated by Biden, the challenger from her opposing party.

My proposal to the lede is to rework it as such:

Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974), also known by her initials MTG, is an American businesswoman and politician serving as a U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district. A member of the Republican Party, Greene has served in Congress since 2021. Her political positions have been described as far-right.

Greene has supported disproven far-right conspiracy theories prior to her legislative tenure, as well as the execution of prominent Democratic politicians. She has also supported the efforts of Republican President Donald Trump to overturn his defeat against Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. During the Electoral College vote count, Greene was among a group of Republican legislators who unsuccessfully objected to votes won by Biden. After Biden was inaugurated, Greene filed articles of impeachment against him, alleging abuse of power.

This fixes the above referenced issues, while retaining the most important information from the current lede. It identifies the same general information - when she took office, how her political positions are viewed, her support for conspiracy theories, and her actions against the 2020 presidential election. It corrects the timeline and subjects in the second paragraph, with her actions regarding the presidential election in concurrent sentences. It adds missing context for readers not aware that Trump, the candidate in her own party was defeated by Biden and the efforts to overturn Trump's defeat has been a major event.

I recognize that there has already been discussion over the "conspiracy theorist" description; my main priority is to rework the problems with the second paragraph. I do not object to retaining the first paragraph, but the second paragraph needs to be rewritten. As the guidelines allow for citations to be removed from the lede if they are present from the article, I also support removing these citations from the lede and moving them to the article's body. Bluerules (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but your argument rests on several inaccurate assumptions. First, nowhere does it say that the lede should start by giving the individual's profession; it typically introduces what the individual is best know for. If you look at Ted Kaczynski or Peter Madsen (both of whom had notable careers), their ledes focus on what made them most notable. So both conspiracy theorist and far-right are not only accurate but also coherent. Jeppiz (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I previously said, I do not object to retaining the first paragraph. My priority is towards the second paragraph being rewritten. Your response is only towards my first paragraph proposal. If there are no objections towards my second paragraph, then I ask that it be added to the article.

As for the first paragraph, your argument rests on false equivalence. You are comparing individuals who were convicted in a court of law to how the subject is perceived. Kaczynski is officially a domestic terrorist and Madsen is officially a convicted murderer - Greene is not officially a conspiracy theorist. Furthermore, Greene is not most notable for being a conspiracy theorist. She is most notable for being an elected member of the House of Representatives. The more accurate comparison is Donald Trump's article where the lede does not refer to him as a "conspiracy theorist" and an attempt to add that description was removed. The lede refers to what he has been officially - politician, president, businessman, and television personality. It is inaccurate to suggest that Greene is officially far-right and a conspiracy theorist. It is accurate to identify that her positions are considered far-right (like Trump's article) and that she has supported right-wing conspiracy theories - as well as more coherent by not repeating the conspiracy theorist comment. Bluerules (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A better comparison perhaps might be L. Lin Wood, Jo Rae Perkins, or Laura Loomer, though these are all WP:OTHERCONTENT. One does not need to be "officially" a conspiracy theorist (whatever that means); one must only be widely described as such by reliable sources. That is the case for Greene. From what I am seeing in sources, her conspiracy theories are about as widely-discussed as her position in Congress, and many sources mention them in the same breath (for example [10] and [11]).

As for whether we say she is far-right, I think the sourcing is sufficient to do so rather than only saying she has supported far-right conspiracy theories (though that is also easily sourced). I do not think we should change the "far-right" descriptor to say that she holds far-right views: someone who holds far-right views is far-right.

As for your second paragraph, I'm mostly fine with it, although I do think a brief list of some of the theories she has more prominently supported is useful. Perhaps just including Pizzagate, QAnon, and false flag shootings? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The best comparison is Donald Trump because in addition to being an elected official, his article has the most attention, editors, and consensuses being reached in its editing. Trump has widely been described as a conspiracy theorist - there's even an article - so why does his lede not identify him as such? Different editorial teams will come to different conclusions and consensuses, but it is noteworthy that among the most regulated articles here has rejected the "conspiracy theorist" label, despite Trump widely being described as such by verifiable sources. The consensus on his article is to what he officially is - and by "officially", what is factually, concretely verifiable. Verifiable sources may describe Greene as a conspiracy theorist, but these are still outside descriptions. It is not the same as Greene being a politician and member of Congress because this is official record. I do believe that Greene's support for conspiracy theories is notable for the lede, which is accomplished by mentioning it in the second paragraph.

For the "far-right" descriptor, the same problem arises. What specifically are "far-right" views? Greene being a member of the Republican Party is a concrete fact, but "far-right" is not concrete. It is an interpretation of her views. That is why Trump's article says his views are "populist, protectionist, isolationist and nationalist" instead of outright saying he is these things. I believe the the "far-right" interpretation is warranted because of the verifiable sources describing her as such, but we need to note that this is still how others have described her positions, not that she concretely is far-right. Even the far-right politics article acknowledges that there is debate over this terminology.

As for the second paragraph, I do not have an issue with adding some of the theories she's supported. I will make the appropriate changes. Bluerules (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This is why I have referred to the WP:OTHERCONTENT policy. I can point to a handful of articles that use the descriptor, you can point to a handful that don't, but in the end it is the sourcing that must determine what this article says. I should probably also point out that this is a topic that has been discussed at length on this talk page already: #Conspiracy Theorist Label? It came to no conclusion, other than that an RfC would probably be needed to change the past consensus, but it might save both of us repeating some arguments there.

We do not determine a descriptor for Greene by examining the views she holds and making our own determinations of whether they're far-right or not; that would be synthesis. We go by what reliable sources say, and there are four high-quality sources that describe Greene herself as far-right ([12]). GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The argument isn't based on Trump's article simply not using the "conspiracy theorist" descriptor, but the fact that his article is highly regulated. I am aware that there was a previous discussion over this topic, but my stance isn't the same as others objecting to this label. Others have attacked the sources and dismissed the label altogether - I personally agree that she can be considered a conspiracy theorist. But what I personally believe is irrelevant. What matters is what's factually verifiable, which has been the final conclusion on the pages with the most regulation. Reliable sources may provide a description on an individual - but it is still a description, not a concrete fact.

That is my issue with the "far right" and "conspiracy theorist" labels. Reliable sources may describe her as such, but those are still descriptions, not concrete facts. We can't accurately say someone is far-right because unlike political parties, political ideology is not concrete. It can be interpreted, the interpretation can be well-founded and researched, but it still an interpretation. I support having a "far-right" mention in this article for that reason, but the accurate wording is to specify this is how she's considered. When the sources say she is far-right, this is not definitive evidence of her being far-right - it is evidence of reliable sources considering her to be far-right. Bluerules (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you are basing your Trump argument upon, I am just saying that we do not use cherrypicked articles, no matter how "regulated" we think they are, to make decisions. Your argument that Greene can't be described as a conspiracy theorist in the lead sentence simply because Trump's article doesn't describe him as such is not convincing; we go by the weight of coverage in reliable sources, which overwhelmingly describe Greene as a conspiracy theorist. If you want to start an RfC on it to get broader consensus, be my guest, though.

When the sources say she is far-right, this is not definitive evidence of her being far-right - it is evidence of reliable sources considering her to be far-right. Indeed, but that is precisely what we care about: WP:TRUTH. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I recognize the problem with comparing articles because of how many people edit this website, but Trump's article is at least food for thought. Why is Trump not deemed a conspiracy theorist despite the heavy coverage of such? Yeah, I know that's not a convincing argument due to Wikipedia guidelines and how this site operates, but that's not my core argument either. My core argument is what's reflected in the Trump article - the articles should state the concrete facts as concrete facts, while interpretations/descriptions are identified as such.

To put it most simply, how do we verify someone's political ideology? It's not like political parties, which are public record. It's a matter of interpretation - like I said, one that could be well-researched, but still an interpretation. An individual may identify themselves one way and verifiable sources could give another interpretation. The sources don't actually verify the individual's ideology; they verify how the individual is considered.

Despite my comments, I don't particularly object to either descriptor because I do consider them accurate. My concern comes down to how verifiable they actually are. If it hasn't been done already, I'm open to closely analyzing the sources. Bluerules (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I've already answered your second paragraph, which is that we go by what reliable sources say. See the WP:TRUTH link for an explanation of what happens when RS are wrong or diverge from "the truth". GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This is what I mean by a closer analysis of the sources - are the sources treating the "far-right" label as a verifiable fact or interpretation? We don't have to analyze them further because I'm satisfied with the lede and glad we came to a compromise. But if you think it's worth analyzing, I'm open to it. Bluerules (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggest your argument has more sweeping policy implications beyond the scope of this article alone, and you should probably try to discuss those matters elsewhere rather than attempt to implement changes here first. soibangla (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That's worthwhile consideration - where do you recommend I discuss this? Bluerules (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:VPP would be the spot to propose policy changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look into it. Bluerules (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"disproven far-right conspiracy theories" is problematic. First, conspiracy theories by definition cannot be disproved, which is why they are conspiracy theories. Also, conspiracy theories are far right by definition, since it is part of their world view. TFD (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not my wording, that already existed in the lede. Bluerules (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

conspiracy theories by definition cannot be disproved This isn't true at all. Some of the best-known conspiracy theories have been quite conclusively disproven, such as the flat earth conspiracy theory. QAnon says in its lead that "QAnon is a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory". As for "conspiracy theories are far right by definition", this is generally true, but I do think the specification is helpful because it clarifies that she is the QAnon/Pizzagate type of conspiracy theorist rather than the UFOs/flat earth type. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

False claims about voter fraud

"(Undid revision 1003466736 by Thronedrei (talk) The multiple sources already cited establish quite clearly that her claims are false.)"

I would like to contest this. There is no link in this article to any source that proves that there was no voter fraud. As such, if you have a source that proves that there was no voter fraud, please actually link it to this article.Thronedrei (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

See the citations directly after the sentence:

• "Greene's most recent posts included one that made false claims about widespread voter fraud in Georgia in both the November election and in the Jan. 5 Senate runoffs, as well as a series of tweets that repeated more debunked claims and called Georgia's elections officials 'morons.'" NBC
• "Her account’s last tweet included a video in which Ms. Greene repeated baseless claims of voter fraud, blaming elected leaders in Georgia for failing to act ahead of the Senate runoff races that resulted in Republicans losing their majority." New York Times
• "Greene's account is still viewable to the public. The newly elected representative's most recent messages on the platform repeat false claims that elections that resulted in Trump's defeat and key Republican losses in the Senate were flawed." NPR

GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Support for conspiracy theories -- Superfluous Parenthetical

Under "Support for conspiracy theories" the parenthetical(and that David Hogg, a survivor of the shooting and a gun-control advocate, is a "coward") should be removed.

Thinking someone is a coward isn't a conspiracy theory. It doesn't belong in-line with the actual conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weslima (talk • contribs) 16:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Weslima, agreed and removed. Calling the shooting a false flag is a conspiracy theory, smearing a survivor of a mass shooting is just bad taste. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Passing of House Resolution 72: Removal from House Committees

On February 4th 2021 the United States House of Representatives voted to pass HR 72 by a vote of 230 to 199, removing Taylor Green from both the Budget Committee and the Education and Labor Committee.

Do we have a list of the 11 Republicans who voted to remove her? If not, I feel like that’s important and it should be placed somewhere in this article SRD625 (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Not far-right, not Conspiracy theorist.

This description of the congresswoman is completely biased.

If you allow to call her a far-right, conspiracy theorist politician, Alexandra Ocasio Cortes should be described as a far-left, anti law and order activist in the first line of the paragraph. Gattogatuno (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

first; no reliable sources call her that; second, this is the wrong article to discuss that SRD625 (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that at least far right should be removed from the article. Even if she was far-right, it's loaded wording. Simply putting "an American politician and businesswoman" is far more professional neutral wording that we should strive to promote on Wikipedia.Spilia4 (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

She is described as such in WP:RS. There is no reason to remove factual statements just because they are "loaded." Additionally, it would actually be biased and not neutral to not describe MTG as she is in WP:RS. Saxones288 (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Practically every reliable source calls her far right so we should just leave it there; even if it’s a loaded statement, it’s true and it’s covered by reliable sources SRD625 (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

On the right of the Republican Party yes, far-right not. Unless democrats like Ilhan Omar on left of the Democrat Party, be branded as far-left too. She has also made anti Semitic comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.41 (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Lets see the RS that claim this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar isn't relevant here, please see WP:OTHERCONTENT, if you have problems with her article you may discuss those at Talk:Ilhan Omar, or edit the page.

We follow what the sources say. If you can find a reliable, non-biased source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for what sources may be acceptable) that says she isn't far-right, please share it, and we can assess and discuss whether a change to the article is justified.
SSSB (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2021

A wikipedia article has to be precise!

"she has supported the execution of prominent Democratic politicians before running for Congress.[8] "

hitting a like button on social media is not "support". false or misleading statements should be avoided since "support" would be a criminal offense. Thats the difference between a news article and a wikipedia entry. I also couldnt verify the facebook material. could you please make sure its not just allegations but the posts are verifiable. I sadly cannot assist sicne I do not use any social media accounts.

she has supported the execution of prominent Democratic politicians before running for Congress.[8]

should be changed to

she had repeatedly liked comments on facebook with different statements about the "execution or prosecution" of prominent Democratic politicians before running for Congress.[8] 2A01:CB04:748:A200:FCFC:6ADC:AAB8:97D4 (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please propose alternate wording in the form "change X to Y based on Z source". Guy (help! - typo?) 09:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

February 4th regret for her comments about controversial topics.

"Before the vote, the new Georgia congresswoman expressed regret for her views, which included claims that school shootings and 9/11 were staged."www.bbc.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmmason135 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Jmmason135, I am sure she does regret the consequences of her actions. Notably, she did not apologize to the House or to the members she had targeted, so reality-based sources are taking her "regret" with a grain of salt. Regardless, please propose a change in the form "change X to Y based on Z reliable source". Guy (help! - typo?) 09:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Responses within Congress

Greene responded, "Too bad a few Republican Senators are obsessing over me, instead of preparing to defend President Trump from the rabid radical left. Focus on ending the witch hunt. Do your job

This sentence should go. It's a WP:MANDY statement and a non-sequitur in the context of criticism of her substantive actions. We are not a newspaper, we are not obliged to he-said-she-said our way through a thing where the consensus of reliable sources unambiguously shows, as it does here, that right is on only one side of an exchange. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed.
SSSB (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed as WP:UNDUE, —PaleoNeonate – 23:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Information Factual, Tone can be misconstrued as bias.

The description of events is overall accurate. But we as “Wikipedians” need to keep in mind that our way o f convincing is by giving accurate facts that speak for themselves. While the content contains no false statements, the viewpoint of the author is not hidden. I could do no better as I have strong beliefs about MTG. I admire the author for taking on this challenge in a polarized world.

I look at Wikipedia through the lens of a student writing a paper on MTG 100 years in the future. With that in mind my only edits would be allowing the facts to speak for themselves. They are damning and require no editorializing. Minor changes is all that would be required and this is something the author might consider, and is more than capable of doing.

Respectfully, M.John Moriarty O7/Feb/21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HNLmike (talk • contribs) 23:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

To: M. John Moriarty I just want to say that your feedback is my sentiments exactly. If one picks up an old book based encyclopedia, you’d never see such editorializing. There’s absolutely no need to indoctrinate anyone. The author is not being honest with himself nor we Wikipedia users. GTO3DEUCES (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2021

It's hate speech calling her a conspiracy theorists. It's an outright lie, nor is she a white supremacist or Nazi. These are very dangerous and inaccurate statements. BobbyJollyTrots (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable sources, which support that she is a conspiracy theorist. The article does not describe her as a white supremacist or a Nazi, though it does make well-sourced statements that she has espoused views that some would probably consider to be aligned with these groups. If you have contradictory sources, feel free to provide them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If telling anti fascism protestors to “stay the hell out of Georgia” and cocking a rifle at them isn’t “hate speech”, I don’t know what is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It should say in the lede or in the article, that she is a racist xenophobe and islamophobe. [13] It does mention she promoted anti-semitic views, but not that she is anti-Semitic. [14]. [15]. There are dozens of these types of references, in every continent on earth. scope_creep^Talk 14:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2021

You can't call out far-right unless you also call out far-left... 67.55.241.8 (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Have any RS said she is far left?Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the IP means that the biographies of far-left politicians don't call them far-left in the lead. This is something that is consistently pointed out above. Simply, WP:OTHERCONTENT applies, and we follow sources which consistently categorise here as far-right, which they don't do for other politicians. As an unrelated side, most of the people that are being mentioned in this argument, aren't actually far-left at all. Just further left than the Democrats traditionally are.
SSSB (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Further, of the first person I clicked on in Category:Far-left politics, Dimitris Giotopoulos is identified as a Marxist in the lead.
SSSB (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Down syndrome and the “R-word”

There should be a mention of this controversy in the article as well. 2604:2D80:6986:4000:0:0:0:F6 (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

There already is. —C.Fred (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Marjorie Taylor Greene's Response to Allegations:

50.52.4.54 (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Marjorie Taylor Greene's response to her allegations in Congress, before she was removed from her committee assignments, includes this excerpt: "So later in 2018, when I started finding misinformation, lies, things that were not true in these Qanon posts, I stopped believing it. And I want to tell you, any source, and I say this to everyone, any source of information that is a mix of truth and a mix of lies is dangerous no matter what it is saying, what party it is helping, anything or any country it’s about, it’s dangerous."

References

We say " she distanced herself from that conspiracy theory and said she had not referred to "Q" or QAnon during her campaign. She said she no longer had a connection with it and mentioned, in an interview for Fox News in August 2020, having found "misinformation".".Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

TLDR

It is a demonstrated fact that when you give someone too much information they don't read any of it. There have been many experiments done by people who want to know if twelve banner ads on the top of their web page will make more or less money than just one. One wins every time.

If you want to reach people, don't fill the top much past half a page on a typical monitor. Once the material at the top fills the entire page, most people scroll to the content, ignoring everything at the top. Some people (who haven't read the research on this) mistakenly think that the reader will read the first few paragraphs before scrolling, but that's not how it works in real life.

Think of it like playing Blackjack: Having 20 is better than having 18, but having 22 or 24 is not better than having 20. Or think of it as moving a pile of rocks with a rowboat. If you carry 10 pounds of rocks on each trip instead of 5 you get done twice as fast. That doesn't make putting 2000 pounds of rock in the boat a good idea.

We have far too much information at the top of this talk page. We need to trim it to the essentials.

Here is what we should definitely keep:

• Discretionary sanctions notice
• FAQ
• This page is about an active politician notice

Alas, the above pretty much uses up all the space we have available if we want the notices to actually be read. We really need to leave out the following:

• This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marjorie Taylor Greene article.

This is great on a page by itself. On this page it pushes the length past the dreaded TLDR limit. (be honest; is there a shred of evidence that anyone who posted any recent comment actually read that? The experienced users already know all of that, and the newbies simply scroll past the wall of text.)

• This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

We all like giving the wikiprojects free advertising, but this is something that helps the editor, not the reader. Wikiprojects can still be listed in the categories at the bottom of the page

• Women in Red project 2020 notice.

Again, we all like giving Women in Red project free advertising, but not when the cost is part making the discretionary sanctions and the FAQ essentially invisible.

• WikiProject United States' 50,000 Challenge notice.

More Wikiproject advertising.

• Daily pageviews of this article

Nice, but we can do without it in order to increase the chances that the important stuff gets read.

• Top 25 Report notice.

Also nice, but we don't have room for it.

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to place the excess notices into Template:Collapse? Surely that will solve the problem?
SSSB (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I just added the collapse. Let's see if anyone squawks. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the links to the talk archives, am I missing something?Shadybabs (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Shadybabs, the syntax was broken, I just fixed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggested edits to Marjorie_Taylor_Greene#Gun_rights

• The "always" is quoted. I suggest removing the quotes, because it implies that Greene said this in my reading. Based on the article, she didn't. Rather, the writer of the article used the "always" statement.
• Remove comma after "Georgia".
• I initially thought I would suggest removing the last sentence of this section because it supported by just a one-sentence line in the source. However, it is briefly mentioned in some other sources, including [16][17].

Freelance-frank (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done remove quotations around always. I see no reason why the comma should be removed, that follows the laws of English grammar.
SSSB (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

Remove the liberal-biased slander. 174.194.8.174 (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Fortunately there is none to remove. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2021

Remove "conspiracy theorist" from her description. Cachman1 (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: She believes in conspiracy theories, so no. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you cite an unimpeachable source for your claim?

216.152.18.132 (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

They're in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Characterizing Greene as a "conspiracy theorist" based on some far-left publications' claims is just plain slanted writing. Shame you for this! Wikipedia's supposed NPV policy is clearly not being followed here. Wikipedia has sure gone down hill in the last several years in the objectivity department. If the same thing had been written about a liberal politician editors would have been all over it like flies on a manure pile.

216.152.18.132 (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources are numerous and reliable. Disagreeing with a source doesn't make it "far-left", and calling a source "far-left" doesn't make it unreliable. Grayfell (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources that support this statement include the New York Times, Washington Post, The Independent, NBC News and CNN to name a few. None of these are remotely far-left. You either don't know what far-left means, don't know anything about these organisations or you trolling us.
SSSB (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, if the sources were far-left as the IP user claims, they would have subscribed to extreme ideas such as, but certainly not limited to, communism, anarchism, or anti-conservative illiberalism. FreeMediaKid! 02:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

wp:npov is clear, we go with what the bulk of RS say, do you have any RS that says she is not a conspiracy theorist?Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Unprotect this page

I want to clean this up.. Please in protect it so it can be made presentable Zimjack (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Requests for unprotection are made at WP:RFPP, not on article talk pages. However I would be surprised if this request is granted given the fairly constant stream of vandalism to the page. Just because you cannot edit the page directly doesn't mean you can't improve the page—please feel free to suggest any changes along with reliable sources right here on the talk page, and other editors who are able to edit the page can make the changes for you if they are improvements. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Decency

This page is full of unconfirmed accusations about a person who is active in our government..far right conspiracy theorist needs removed as well as the other misinformation and bashing of a seated representative.. Everything that has been put in there that is OF OPINION AND NOT FACT.. Needs to be removed.. From this and all other articles on this rediculously opinionated site.. someone's bio should be informative factual and positive.. Not negative.. This page is trash Zimjack (talk) 18:09, 27 February 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. Here are some example edit requests that you can use as a model, if you like. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Template Talk header

• Responding to User:Guy Macon's reversion of my edits here, I never imagined I would EVER have to start a discussion regarding placement of one of the most basic templates on Wikipedia and the most basic talk page template, {{Talk header}}. I would note that both Guy Macon and myself are very long time and experienced editors. Guy Macon states that he is trying to minimize the wall of templates at the beginning of the talk page. A laudable goal and not something that I have a problem with. Indeed, I take steps to do the same thing when possible, such as using banner shell, etc. But in accomplishing that goal, we cannot overlook certain facts. Talk header is a template aimed at newer users, both newer registered editors and IP users. It provides advice useful to new editors. New editors who may not know to look for it if it is hidden or may simply not bother to look at the hidden banners. But its admonitions are meant to be seen by those very new users. For talk header to be effective, it must be in plain view, so that it cannot be missed by newbie users. Both in plain view and at the top of the page. If it is not in plain view and at the top of the page, then just remove it from the page altogether rather than hiding it, for by hiding it you render it useless. Additionally there is the option to place the {{Skip to talk}} template immediately prior to talk header. The newbie user, having at least viewed talk header, can click that and be taken to the talk section. To summarize and recap, I GET that you want to minimize banners, but hiding talk header is NOT the way to do that. Safiel (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the Talk header should not be collapsed, for the reasons stated by Safiel. Funcrunch (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Research has shown that the moment the bottom of the wall of notices goes below the bottom of a user's screen (which varies by user) roughly 80% us users don't read any of the wall of notices. So I would ask the two of you to pick something else of similar size to remove.

Also, the longer version was up for a very long time. Can you show me any example, ever, of a new user reading it? Has anyone asked for a clarification? Has anyone ever said "I wanted to do X but that message up there told me to do Y"? Is it reasonable to think that not one of the hundreds of newbies that you think read it had a question? Or is it more reasonable to think that they didn't read it?

I would also note that there is no evidence one way or the other that collapsing significantly reduces the number of people who read the collapsed section. You are both assuming that it does based upon a hunch. I am assuming that does not based upon a hunch. Unlike the case of length of a box at the top of a webpage -- an area that has been extensively studied because for many websites a lot of money is involved -- I don't know of any academic studies about the effects of collapsing ... so we are both guessing without evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

This is not just stating facts this is incorporating negative opinions. That are aimed to determine the reader’s views for them. It is blatantly and painfully biased. You pot opinions on a page for facts and then wonder why there are conspiracy theorists. 206.71.204.242 (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

No opinions here, only facts supported by reliable sources. We do wonder why people believe Trump was "chosen" to stop a pedophilic satanic cult given that he was buddies with Jeffrey Epstein, but I don't think it has anything to do with Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I see plenty of left-wing bias on Wikipedia and some of it is right here. 216.152.18.132 (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It is a very common occurrence that people see stuff that does not exist. Also, viewed from the far right, the center looks like the far left. Try figuring out what exactly you want to change, then get a reliable source that confirms what you are trying to write. Until then, don't bother to edit here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Where in the article do you see left wing bias and what reliable sources could you use to correct it or put a contrary and alternative view. Spinney Hill (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Spinney Hill (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

Remove the slander stating that she is a "far-right conspiracy theorist". I'm sure if I look up Joe Biden it won't list "senile communist dictator". 174.255.65.233 (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure it won't say that, as Joe Biden is neither senile, a communist, nor a dictator. But, MTG has expressed support for far-right conspiracy theories, so that sticks. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. No mainstream politician in the USA is left wing by world standards or a communist.. When the US Democratic Party advocate that the proletariat should engage in class struggle against the owners of the means of production a revolution that restructures society, a progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances and private property; nationalisation of the means of transport and communication; centralisation of credit via a national bank; expansion of publicly owned land, etc. and a stateless and classless society and adopts not reformism but the revolutionary role of the working class in a world wide revolution I will recognise them as “left wing” None of this except possibly the income tax has to my knowledge been suggested by a mainstream Democrat (or Republican.)

Much of the above description has been taken from “the “Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx and Friederich Engels. It is not very long and I suggest you read it to see what left wing really means.Looking at it It didn’t turn me into a Communist .when I read it many years ago or since. Spinney Hill (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually I have checked the references 2 and 3 and some of the others. Apart from the lead nowhere in the article says she is a conspiracy theorist.Neither do the references I have checked. However the article does say she is a believer in and a promoter of conspiracy theories. This does not make her a conspiracy theorist. I think a theorist is one who composes a theory. To give another example: I believe in the Theory of Evolution but I am not an evolutionary theorist. The theorists were Charles Darwin,Alfred Wallace and (probabl;y)TH Huxley. If I write an article in support of the theory that does not make me a theorist unless I add some original thought to it. Should we change "far right conspiracy theorist" to "far right promoter of conspiracy theories?" Spinney Hill (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC) .

OK, I see what you are saying now, yes we could change it. Not sure its all that different.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It still won't satisfy the fascists. Any more comments? Spinney Hill (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course not, she will still deny it, and decry being held accountable for her words. But we can't do anything about what Marjorie Taylor Greene says.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

2601:18D:4600:83D0:8D31:998B:60E8:569E (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This page is full of misleading info. Greene retracted and apologized for the conspiracy theory stuff and retracted it. She had every right to object to certifying the election as many democrats have done in the past. She is standing up for what is right and only left wing nut bars are angry about it.

We say she has now attempted to distance herself from stuff she said only a couple of years ago. We need RS supporting the rest. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

As Slatersteven says, we need sourcing for any changes. Also, there was no actual edit requested, so I'm closing the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Landslide

The link to Landslide in the third paragraph of the introduction is incorrect, it should link to Landslide victory instead of the geological term. I do not have the permissions to make this edit, could someone change this? Thanks. Drunken Sailor7 (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Drunken Sailor7, thanks for pointing that out. I have corrected the link. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks! Drunken Sailor7 (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

to label her as a "far right conspiracy theorist" is blantant liberal bias. To call her view conspiracy theory is claiming they are untrue. Is this not supposed to be the facts and not biased opinion? Would it be ok to say in Joe Bidens bio that he has dimentia? He shows clear signs of it but it would be wrong to claim that wihtout evidence. But coming from a liberal bias standpoint your would never do that. 2603:8001:8F00:EFF8:31BB:5445:59A4:4D30 (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, and not by what we do on other articles. Please read wp:or and wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

To call her view conspiracy theory is claiming they are untrue

Since the conspiracy theories she's promoted were, in actual fact, untrue, I'm not seeing the problem here. --Calton | Talk 10:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. There is an obvious difference of opinion here. That needs to be resolved before resubmitting this request. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2021 (2)

The false statement of "far right conspiracy theorist" needs to be removed unless you want to face a civil lawsuit for defamation of character. I expect you to adhere to the simple principle of factual information. If this is not changed then you will be liable for the above mentioned and are therefore liable in civil court for false statements against a sitting never of the United States Congress. I will be monitoring this page for the redaction of this information. 207.255.104.76 (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

See wp:legal and WP:NOTDUMB.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

where is the proof that she is a far right conspiracy theorist. That is slander and opinion I think it should be removed immediately or she will be informed and can sue for defamation. 98.117.242.137 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please consider the FAQ at the top of the page, which addresses this. Also, do not make legal threats. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Congressional tenure

The word "resolution" is used three times in this section. In my view it is incorrectly used on at least 2 of these occasions. The word is defined in the "Concise Oxford Dictionary" in this context as follows:

       "A thing resolved on,an intent....a formal expression of opinion by a legislative body or ....meeting." An example is given  "passing a resolution"

"Motion" is defined as follows:

       "A formal proposal put to a committee, legislature etc"

It is clear that a resolution is not a resolution until it is passed. I suggest therefore that on thie first occasion (where the words "draft resolution" are used it is clear that t the resolution has not yet been voted on and the House has not yet adopted. On the other two occasions in my view the word is used incorrectly and "motion" should be used instead. What Williams, Jacobs and Gomez introduced were not resolutions but motions which would become resolutions if passed by the House. We are not told if the Williams/Jacobs motion was passed and become a resolution but we are told that the Gomez motion has not yet been voted on and is unlikely to be passed. It is still therefore a draft resoilution or motion. A similar situation attains with the words "Bill" and "Act" I here give an explanation.William Wilberforce introduced into the British House of Commons in a Bill to abolish the slave trade in April 1791. I t was rejected. He proposed several more bills over several years. It was not until that a bill actually proposed by the Prime Minister, Lord Grenville was passed by the House of Lords and House of Commons. Under the British rules this Bill became an Act of Parliament when it received the Royal Assent on 25 March 1807. On that date it became the Slave Trade Act 1807. Before that date it was the Slave Trade Bill.

It may be that some of the sources call the two motions we are considering as "resolutions" rather than "motions" or "draft resolutions." If this is the case they are mistaken as to the meaning of the word. I do not think Wikipedia has to follow this kind of mistake any more than it would have to follow a spelling mistake or a spelling under a different spelling system. Some of the sources in this article are British and if they used the word "colour " they would spell it that way. Wikipedia (in this article) would not follow that spelling but would use that word without the "u".It would be different if there were mistakes of fact.

I therefore move that we should alter the word " "resolution" on the second and third times it is used to "motion." If enough editors agree with me we will have resolved on the change. Spinney Hill (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Spinney Hill (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Who is Perry Greene?

What does he do? Would be great to get this in the Personal Life section.--A21sauce (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Is 9/11 a right-wing conspiracy theory?

"Greene has supported disproven far-right conspiracy theories such as Pizzagate, QAnon, false flag shootings, and 9/11 conspiracy theories."

Is 9/11 considered a right-wing conspiracy theory? As far as I'm aware, 9/11 conspiracy theories are not more so associated with any one politician affiliation. This is especially considering that George W. Bush, who many conspiracy theorists accuse of being responsible for 9/11, was a conservative politician. (This is not to imply that right-wing adherents cannot believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories.) Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

They certainly can be (9/11 conspiracy theories#New World Order, 9/11 conspiracy theories#Antisemitism in conspiracy theories), but the source used here doesn't specify. I've gone ahead and reworded the sentence to be clear that "far-right" is referring only to Pizzagate and QAnon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

9/11 is not, some of the theories about it are so "and 9/11 conspiracy theories." could well be correct.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

When I said 9/11, I meant 9/11 conspiracy theories. I forgot to proofread. I just realized the implications of my wording. Hopefully readers could tell from the context, though. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Well RS say she has supported far right-wing ones. Sure there maybe left-wing ones as well. But we go with RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2021

Provide an image caption of "Official portrait, 2021" MichaelM444 (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

The representative is referred to as a “Far right Conspiracy theorist” fairly blatantly biased given that others on the other side of the aisle such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar do not have such labels but are as substantively rooted in their beliefs as Rep. Greene. I am requesting that, what I consider derogatory and misleading, title be omitted from the wiki. Thank you for your time and assistance. 184.188.64.41 (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You need to provide RS saying they are.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Per above (RS are WP:Reliable sources) Terasail^[✉] 14:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)