Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

extremist

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

There appears to be clear consensus towards keeping the word "extremist" in the article's lede, as presented in the RfC's opening statement (see dif). Participants agree that this description (not of the subject, but of her ideas and theories) is well sourced and due. (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 16:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC) – Clarified closure (changes in italics). 20:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Shall we use the term "extremist" in the lede like this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Greene has promoted far-right, white-supremacist, and antisemitic conspiracy theories, including the white genocide conspiracy theory, QAnon, and Pizzagate, as well as other extremist conspiracy theories about mass shootings, the Clinton family, and the 9/11 attacks.

— the text at present in the article

Poll

• Yes as the opinions she holds on the Pizzagate, the non-existent white geocide, and Sandy Hook being a false flag (among many, many others) are reliably characterizes as extremists p.o.v.'s by cited sources. Please note that this same user took us on a 3-week bender on a similar issue. Zaathras (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the meaning of "geocide"? Dimadick (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes per Zaathras. Andre🚐 13:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes as we do not call her an extremist, we say she promoted some extreme conspiracy theories (not that she even believes them, just promoted them). Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Good point, the term is affixed to the theories, and not to her. Andre🚐 13:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Wrong, see the diff that is the subject of this RFC. "extremist" is used you can clearly see. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Right as it says " as well as other extremist conspiracy theories", we do not say she is an extremist we say she had repeated extremist conspiracy theories. CLoser please note this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• ALL OF YOU NEED TO REVIEW THE SOURCES AND WP:COMMONSENSE: None of the sources cited say that the list of conspiracies are "extremist conspiracy theories". The difference between "extremist views", which she holds per RS, and "being an extremist", which she is per RS, and a given viewpoint of hers being considered extremist (say, if one of her viewpoints in a list were "I like puppies") should be obvious. To be more clear as in this summary which clearly the editor refused to comprehend, the list of conspiracies, every single one, must be per RS referred to as "extremist", because in the context of this paragraph's wording, you are not referring to MTG as an "extremist", you are referring to the conspiracy theories as "extremist". Otherwise learn to write better. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  All, the caps-lock screech. Charming. Anyway, the article does not state "MTG is an extremist". it states that the views she espouses are. So, care to try again? Zaathras (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Care to read my comment again? OR DO I NEED TO SHOUT IT MORE BECAUSE YOU CLEARLY DID NOT COMPREHEND A WORD I SAID? SamuelRiv (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps a nice cup of tea will help, before you are removed from the topic area. Thus far, no one agrees with your interpretation. Zaathras (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps you should take a step back and cool down and return to editing when you can civilly and cordially discuss the differences of opinion here. Andre🚐 13:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  When an RfC is just a political farce in which no one actual reviews whether or not the content is appropriately sourced, and then any attempt to remove unsourced content is repeatedly reverted in spite of the reversion justifications being factually incorrect by editors who should know better, then at some point they need to be talked to in a pedantic manner. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hey buddy, it's not quite a personal attack, but you're gettin' there. One rule I learned myself the hard way on Wikipedia is that you need to Wikipedia:Stay cool when the editing gets hot. Andre🚐 14:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes per Zaathras and Slatersteven, particularly the abundant sources provided in the discussion section. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes these are extremist views. Note the text does not call her an extremist. With the same reasoning, I suggest we replace the reference to her as a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of the lead to someone who promotes conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  We already had an RFC on the 2nd point recently, that had a consensus to call her conspiracy theorist. Personally, I think that is a distinction without a difference and not an improvement. Andre🚐 15:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Reading through the discussion it appears that many people thought the choice was between saying she promoted conspiracy theories or not mentioning it, rather than what she should be called. That probably stems from how the RfC was crafted, so probably should be redone. While you may not see a distinction, the best style is to avoid labelling people. So we refer to people with disabilities rather than disabled people, or people of color rather than colored people. Of course you may be right that this is all nonsense from politically correct liberal leftists, but there you go. TFD (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree, and I think that WP policy disagrees as well. WP:SPADE and a clear exception for WP:LABEL for reliable sources and WP:PUBLICFIGURE exception for BLP. The RFC was just completed and it is not time to redo it. Andre🚐 22:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP:SPADE clearly says it is not a policy, it is an essay not vetted by the community, which you should know if you actually read it. You haven't explain how the LABEL guideline or the BLP exception relate to your position. But putting Wikirules aside, labelling people is what one could expect of people like MTG. We should be better. TFD (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  I personally don't see a problem with describing someone as what they are. Essays explain policy, and the policy that one explains is that statements that are clearly made in RS should be made in Wikivoice. MTG is a conspiracy theorist. This was just settled. Andre🚐 00:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Then I suppose we have different values. Not everyone has empathy. I got into the same argument about whether we should use the term "illegal immigrants." However labelling people dehumanizes them and is discouraged in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's no more dehumanizing to call someone a conspiracy theorist than it is to call someone a crank nuclear physicist. In both cases we have an action, which characterizes the doer of the action, and an attached modifier. A nuclear physicist is one who does physics of the nuclear variety. If they happen to be a crank it tells you something about their specific field, namely that it's fringe or considered non-mainstream and maybe not so valid. A conspiracy theorist is someone who theorizes on conspiracies, such as that maybe there is a secret cabal that controls the weather and the media and the economy blah blah blah. You can make the argument that it is pejorative or that it has a negative connotation, about the ideas or respectability, but we aren't dehumanizing the people. I would say a dehumanizing term would be something like "enemy combatant" in the context of justifying torture. We're saying that because they are a certain type of combatant they aren't entitled to the normal POW rights or the Geneva conventions. "Illegal immigrant" might be dehumanizing if we use that to justify stuff like detention or family separation. I think Ms. Greene will survive being the darling congresswoman R-QAnon and maintain her basic human rights and respect as a human being, just one with ideas that are not considered mainstream or based in science and facts. Andre🚐 03:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  You already explained your position and as I said reliable sources don't share your view. I have not come across any Wikipedia articles that call people cranks. Do you find that term respectful? TFD (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Why do you get to decide some ones political leaning . That is so unprofessional 157.211.12.205 (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  One, we do not, RS do. Two we are not paid, so there is no requirment for us to be professional. Now if you have sources that contest she is any of the things we call her produce them. And (again) we do not call her an extemist. Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  "It's no more dehumanizing to call someone a conspiracy theorist than it is to call someone a crank nuclear physicist."

  Thanks for that gracious, intelligent comment. Young waif (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes per TFD. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes and speedy close We just went through this rodeo with the RfC above. Re-hashing it is just pedantic. Curbon7 (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• No it is undue weight in the lede and seems to only have one or two sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Note for closer, the above voter is also the RfC initiator. This is just to make sure their input is not double-counted as sometimes the nomination is considered a vote. Zaathras (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

That isnt the case for RFCs as RFCs are specifically meant to be neutrally worded so that you cant even tell which way the person opening it feels. nableezy - 15:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - As per use of the word in sources. It would perhaps solve some doubt about this if more sources explicitly using the word could be found. The Guardian has another piece that uses the word straight from the get-go (1) but as it is an opinion piece, it might prove less useful. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• No Extremist is a highly subjective term that's been used to describe many prominent figures, including Dr. King, but his article does not call him an extremist. X-Editor (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Would love to see a source, other than a contemporary white supremacist, that calls Dr. King an "extremist". Zaathras (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Zaathras:

  • Charles J. Dunlap Jr., Jan. 16, 2022, mainly quoting King himself in "Letter from Birmingham Jail." There are many references to this by a plethora of writers and publications.
  • Time magazine, Jan. 12, 2018, referring to opinions during King's lifetime.
  • Rufus Burrow Jr.
  • Bartleby
  • Many more. I lived through that era; we white people were scared of his extremism. He wasn't considered a hero at the time, but a dangerous, subversive agitator. (Glad mnay of us eventually recognized greatness.)

  YoPienso (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. It accurately reflects the preponderance of reliable sourcing, and it's not a BLP violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes As with far-right conspiracy theorist, it is the basis for MTG's notoriety. ValarianB (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Subjectivity and peoples ideas are not important. Wikipedia shows what reliables sources state. There are many good sources for this, so we follows those sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes MTG very clearly espouses extremist ideologies and far-right conspiracy theories, and this is supported by reliable sources. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• No, not convinced that's a neutral and subjective approach to articles.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes - Reflects the reporting of WP:RS. Replying to Ortizesp above, I would add that neutral does not mean "non-accusatory", "non-negative", or otherwise "doesn't put the subject in a bad light". It means "reports only what reliable sources say". Which this word does. Fieari (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, it's extensively described that way in the sources to the point where it's clear that this is a significant part of her notability. --Aquillion (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, its significant and accurate. scope_creep^Talk 11:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• No Not in the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artemaeus Creed (talk • contribs)
• Yes in the lede. The lede is supposed to summarize what someone is notable for. If it weren't for her extreme-right outrageousness, nobody would pay any attention to her. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• I do not support use of terms like extremist in the lede, especially for an elected official. Seems to be a WP:BLP violation. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Weren't this and this quite enough of these sorts of discussions? Are there any more words in this article that offends your sensibilities? Perhaps we could get them all in here and have a sort of omnibus discussion, once and for all. Zaathras (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  We go with what RS say, and being an elected official does not mean you get special privileges here. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  it does not mean you get to decide some ones political leaning 157.211.12.205 (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Note: I have taken the liberty of adding the full sentence (minus the citations to reduce clutter) to ensure readers see the full context and that we are NOT discussing an article which says "X is an extremist" as some may surmise. Zaathras (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

No, we were talking about conspiracy theorist in those discussions and it seems the rhetoric has escalated to now call the article subject an extremist. We all know the word is there for the inference, there is no real use of extremist in this manner. Have a look at google, it gets less than 4k results with the quotes. Its a loaded label, and as TFD says its discouraged. The WP:BATTLE continues on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The diff is included, and there is only one word that is subject of the RFC. There should be no confusion when a diff is included, except those who are too lazy to click the diff. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see a need to specifically distinguish as there are many sources that describe both the woman and the theories as extremism. For example:[1] "Mrs Greene's extremist conspiracy theories" [2] "candidate known for her support of extremist conspiracy theories" [3] "s while promoting extremist conspiracy theories." it's not controversial IMO. Andre🚐 13:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Change the ones we use in the lead to those. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Great. Cite these sources in the place where you call the conspiracy theories themselves "extremist". What's so difficult about this? Where you call her an extremist you cite sources that call her an extremist, where you call an opinion extremist you cite sources that call that specific opinion extremist, etc. This is obvious stuff, people. I can't believe this is controversial. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe we could have good faith and boldly improved the article instead of starting a whole RFC and removing easily cited content. There's a difference between "we need to improve our sourcing and referencing because it's a bit vague" and "extremist is not allowed on a BLP!!!" Andre🚐 14:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  I have added the BBC and the NBC source. Feel free to change it and make it better! Wikipedia(TM) - where we do things, and not just talk about why we don't like things and suggest other people do it! Andre🚐 14:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Also, the claims are already cited in the body such as https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/georgia-congressional-candidate-s-writings-highlight-qanon-support-n1236724. so maybe people need to read the article before objecting to what we say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly. Lede doesn't need explicit cites in the body, though it don't hurt. But this dispute could be avoided and we could avoid all the messy screaming and drama. Andre🚐 14:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Write better edit summaries and read people's edit summaries. Your assumption was that the removal was partisan, and your (plural) reversions became partisan in the process. The original removal said that the extremist label wasn't supported by the sources. The sentence in question used the word "extremist" in the context of "extremist conspiracy theories", and had two sources, neither of which supported that usage. The removal was 100% appropriate, and it fell entirely on you, the regular editors of this page, to remedy the situation if you wanted that content to stay in. If your preference instead is for a reference-free lead, which is appropriate per MOS, then make that a standard instead.

  Meanwhile this article is still a joke in content, but you've already made your opinion on the appropriateness of jokes known previously, so I've dropped it. But I never drop citation issues. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Read wp:lead, if it is cited in the body (it has already been pointed out it was) it does not need a cite in the lead. Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with Slater, but aside from which, @SamuelRiv, the removal was not merited. It feels like a failure to get the point. There are umpteen sources describing Greene and her theories as, well, what they are. It takes 2 to edit war. You are accusing me of assuming the removal was partisan, which is itself bad faith and partisan. Please back off. Andre🚐 14:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Additionally WP:BLUDGEON would apply. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't matter , you don't get to decide someone else's political leaning and you clearly have a massive bias . How many other pages dictated your opinion not facts? 157.211.12.205 (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

OK sources for extremist

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/06/who-is-marjorie-taylor-greene-republican-qanon https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-midterms-personal-security-b2088975.html

Extreme rhetoric/Remarks

https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-mccain-marjorie-taylor-greene-pete-buttigieg-freak-transgender-1692205 https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/14/marjorie-taylor-greene-apologizes-for-holocaust-covid-comments.html

Link to extemtist groups

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/22/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-disqualification/index.html

This is enough for me for us to call here an extremist, let alone the views she holds. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

No you linked the guardian, the independent, cnbc , news week. All left leaning or far left leaning ... you even linked farleft propaganda herself cnn . Nothing they have said about her is even remotely credible because They literally hate her and the fact that you only sourced from left leaning news media really says a lot . All you did was poll from left leaning sources and tried to claim it as fact . It's very dishonest and very unprofessional 157.211.12.205 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I've seen people claim CNN is left-leaning, but CNBC? Okay then. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

To be honest you can keep your far leftist propaganda ... just wow . You're not even remotely credible and are literally why no considers wp even remotely credible . 157.211.12.205 (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

This has run its course and needs closing before it gets heated. Users are taking far too close to DS violations. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• There are only two sources for the word "extremist"? Also we dont close an RFC due to the behavior of editors. If people are behaving badly it is probably evidence at the RFC is needed in the first place. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Hence why I have two other criteria listed as well. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you proposing to edit the lede text to include all three of those claims? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I am pointing out that the idea she has said (or is or has supported) extremist things is supported (in various ways) by RS. If we nave mutltiple RS discussing an issue if different ways (in the case her link to extremism) we are are allowed to summarise or paraphrase to save space. But (in a way) you are half right, it might be better to just reword it to make it clear she is an extremist, not just someone who has used extremist language. You are arguing me round to that view. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Propose that if you feel the sourcing justifies it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

What we have in the body, plus the above. But I am happy to also stick with the current version. My point is the idea she speards extremist conspiracy theories is well sourced, that we (if anything) are erring on the side of caution. Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

How many sources are there for "extremist conspiracy theories"? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

More than there are for them not being "extremist conspiracy theories". Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

So there is only one source for this? That would not qualify as sufficient for weight currently in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

There are probably hundreds of sources that call MTG an extremist or call her theories extreme conspiracy theories, extremist conspiracy theories, or things that are broadly synonymous such as "qanon conspiracy theories," and similar sources that call qanon extremist, etc. I assure you a basic search through any random database should yield plenty of fruit. Andre🚐 23:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Then how bout actually provide a source from a credible independent source?? Rather then only linking sources from left leaning or far left leaning news media . You literally polled from only left leaning sources and tried to claim it as fact . It's extremely unprofessional 157.211.12.205 (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

These are credible independent sources. See WP:RSN and WP:RSP for more on reliable sources. That discussion is inappropriate here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

No they're not you source from her political opponents do you think we are all blind and don't see what you did ?? 157.211.12.205 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

If they are not please point top the wp:rsn thread where wp:consensus sid they were not. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

If you think these are not credible sources take it to wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

did cnn tell you to say that ?? 157.211.12.205 (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

No policy does, our policies. Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

No you did it and wp policies have nothing to do with it 157.211.12.205 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Again (must this be repeated) we do not call her an extremist. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes please, there's a clear consensus to include the "extremist" language. Andre🚐 18:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

More sources

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2021/02/why-republicans-are-standing-extremist-marjorie-taylor-greene

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-defense-democrats-harness-partys-ties-extremism/story?id=75760701

https://www.politico.com/news/georgia-senate-runoff-2021-latest-race-updates-and-polls

Want more? Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Apart from IP drive-bys, this is 10 days stale, can we close it? Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2022 (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.

Biased Article 2.0

Multiple individuals have expressed concern with the blatant and obvious bias included in this article. Consider the sources attributing the subject of this article to be a “far right conspiracist”. These sources are quoting the opinions of others, and have absolutely no basis in fact. It appears to me (and many others, apparently) that opinions from news articles are being presented as fact through Wikipedia. I am disappointed that Wikipedia would allow such obvious bias to be presented on their website 2600:1700:1DD2:9B0:D1ED:5A3F:A118:F3CF (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

We had an RFC on this, the consensus was to include the terminology. It's a fact that MTG is a conspiracy theorist, and reliable sources cover her this way. Andre🚐 17:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Have they, or just one person using separate IP's? Most of whom never seem to have edited any other article, in any way. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Possibly via proxy, as they emanate from various locations, although the one above geolocates to Georgia. In any case, extremists hate it when their heroes get quoted accurately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Aernsthouse (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not my opinion but the opinion of many editors. See this RFC[4] Andre🚐 19:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The only people who think the article is biased are those who have not created a Wikipedia account. ZetaFive (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If you think that balance is required on any particular matter please add any contrary view supported by a reliable source, citing that source. Please make sure that source is reliable and do not edit out any item. Other complainants have cited some sources as biased and extreme left wing; in particular cnn, the Guardian and Independent. Being English and living in England I have never seen CNN (except on a non party issue- OJ Simpson.) I can tell you that the Guardian is a respected English newspaper considered to be mildly left leaning. The Independent was a respected English newspaper which prided itself on being independent and not having a particular point of view. It is no longer a newspaper as it does not print, but it still has an online edition. If you want to use a right leaning English newspaper as a source try the Daily Telegraph. Spinney Hill (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2022

In the section "LGBT Rights", change the phrase "less then" to "less than". Lowlyeditor (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for pointing this out. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Or even "fewer than", though I wouldn't imagine MTG using correct phrasing. Lowlyeditor (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Image

There have been a number of pictures in the infobox,which seem to get changed frequently, and I am confused as to their status. Which ones cannot or can be used please?. And which is the best one to use for wikipedia purposes aside from the copyright issues

1) a picture of MTG in a red dress and black jacket and a black and white patterned curtain on the left side. This does not appear to be a very photo. The top part of her head is cut off. there is glare on her forehead.nose and one cheek. The copyright status appears to be impeccable. It has not been used recently

2) A photo showing one US flag behind MTG and she wears a blue dress or shirt (just visible) and a white jacket. This is an "official photograph" for the 117th Congress. and is stated to be in the public domain but has been challenged for copyright issues. This is the first one I saw and looks to be the best picture in my view.

3) A photo by Gage Skidmore. MTG wears a black dress and wears a prominent cross round her neck. The copyright status seems impeccable

4)A picture said to be an official picture and in the public domain. She wears a flowered dress and looks straight at the camera and has two flags behind her. This was first inserted by user superwiki. It replaced number 3

5) Similar to number 3 but MTG faces the other way and appears to be laughing. User Zaathras preferred this believing number 6 was put in by her press office, but it looks to me as though 4 and 5 come from the same source.She wears the same black dress.

6) Another from the same source

7) No longer visible but my recollection is it was another shot in front of two flags possibly another "official photo"

I am a retired lawyer but my qualification was in England and Wales not any of the US states and copyright is not my subject. Some users have said the "official photos" are in the public domain but ones has been deleted and one is under question so that rule if exists is not absolute. In Britain I believe we have a concept of "Crown Copyright" whereby the copyright of official material is owned by the government. Can we standardise on Number 2 if this is allowed? It seems the best picture to me. I agree we ought not to use pictures provided by the subject's press office even if the press office releases its rights. If we cannot use number 2 are we back to using one of the black dress shots (number 6 looks to me to be the best of these and not obviously a publicity shot but it is not ideal) or are we back to using number one -obvoiusly the worst shot technically. Spinney Hill (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Connormah: here; as the one who uploaded many Congressional portraits (including the current one as of this reply), they may be better placed to explain. SuperWIKI (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: My memory may be hazy here, but I remember that an identical image that was previously deleted came from a Facebook link. Even if that image itself was actually public-domain the source (Facebook) cannot be considered for any proof of such copyright status, hence it was removed. The present upload by Connormah comes from Greene's official Congressional website and if the site's copyright page is any indication, it is evidently public-domain, in accordance with 17 USC 105. SuperWIKI (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The ones that were deleted were probably in the public domain, but were not outwardly listed as such, so they had to have deleted as the license could not be proven (in the US, most things by the Federal government, including congressional portraits, are in the public domain). This one was part of that batch I think, but there is a proper notice on the website now that explicitly says public domain. Curbon7 (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

All US House portraits seem to be authored by House Creative Services and have a very distinctive style, per the many examples at List of new members of the 117th United States Congress (many of them have image metadata identifying them as such, eg File:Jay Obernolte 117th U.S Congress.jpg, though some have also been uploaded in a way that has lost the metadata). The particular portrait on this page that was nominated for deletion, to me, is quite obviously a congressional portrait, likely taken on the same day as other examples like these (note the same date in the metadata, and additional info displaying House Creative Services). Connormah (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I argued that in the deletion discussion over at Commons. But Commons is, er, Commons. Curbon7 (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Spouse Information Update

On September 28, 2022 Perry Greene (MTG’s Husband) filed for divorce shouldn’t the profile in the spouse section be updated to Perry Greene (m. 1995 sep. 2022)? 67.212.47.110 (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have noted that they are separated.[5] We do not know how long they have been separated, however. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

He had done it before, they have reconciled before. So I am unsure this is relevant, when they divorce it might be. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Name?

Is there some particular reason why this article can’t divulge its subject’s full birth name? TheScotch (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

TheScotch, As far as I'm aware, "Marjorie Taylor" was her full birth name, unless there is something I'm missing. Curbon7 (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is: You're missing her middle name, of course. The article as it currently stands doesn't even say her birth name was "Majorie Taylor" (leaving out the middle name), however. It merely says that her father's surname is "Taylor", and we are left to infer her birth name. We shouldn't be.TheScotch (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

After a web search, I couldn't find a reliable secondary source with her middle name. This is the stumbling block, it hasn't been excluded deliberately. Online genealogy searches etc are not a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

My "divulge" was facetious. I didn't mean to suggest that Wikipedia was secreting the information in a closet in Ma-ra-lago (so to speak). It happens, however, that I came to this article for one reason only: to try to discover this person's original name (after reading that her husband, surname Greene, was divorcing her). It's disappointing that this is just what is conspicuously missing from the article. If you can't find a reliable source, tell me what the unreliable sources say and just don't put it in the article. TheScotch (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Based on Hillary Rodham Clinton, it's a safe bet that her birth name is Marjorie Taylor (BTW did you know that Hillary Clinton's middle name is Diane, I didn't until just now). I'm sure that someone could find MTG's birth certificate online, but it wouldn't be a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Surely a birth certificate issued by the US equivalent of the General Register Office is reliable. A genealogical source would not be on its own. The only problem with a certificate would be connecting the Marjorie Taylor on the certificate with this Marjorie Taylor. Spinney Hill (talk) 09:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY generally bans this sort of thing, and there are also WP:OR problems. I was looking for an online profile in a reliable secondary source that gave her full birth name, but couldn't find one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I take your point on Original Research and Primary Resources. However a certificate from a public register office is a published document. It can be purchased in almost the same way by anybody as a a book or newsaper can be purchased. In sending a request for it one is conducting original research but not quite in the way as a scientist conducting a new experiment or a historian consulting unpublished letters from the 1920s and handwritten documents dating from the 13th century. There are published documents which are easlily obtainable such as a telephone or trade directory but to say that there are such and such a number of grocers' shops in Northampton.England using such sources is probably original research.

This article says "Greene was born in Milledgeville, Georgia, on May 27, 1974, the daughter of Robert Taylor." I don't know how large that town is but there can't be many people called Marjorie Taylor born there on 27 May 1974. A search of the register office would probably find only one It could allow the middle name to be included in the article. It might reveal there were two such people. If Marjorie Anne Taylor's father was Robert and Marjorie Brenda Taylor's father was Albert that would probably show our subject's middle name was Anne . The existing information (which is sourced) would allow the middle name to be published I would have thought. The rules against including sensitive details in biographies of living persons would probably prevent including other details such as the address of the birth or residence of parents which might appear on the certificate. Spinney Hill (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

There's also the interesting omission of her mother's name, I have looked before and there is nothing to be found. Zaathras (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this a hate speech?

I hope a team (or a person) who can stay neutral in this diverse political climate re-edit this. This article, in its current form, is not neutral; it is more like a political propaganda full of hate. 2001:569:5316:F100:CC36:1C45:F38F:1301 (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

That sounds pretty disingenuous, especially given you've not provided any examples to back up your claims. Content is taken solely from reliable sources, adhering to neutral point of view (see subsections WP:WEIGHT, WP:VALID, WP:BALANCE). If a reliable source describes a person or an event in a particular way, Wikipedia will do the same. It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to sugar coat things and make it more palatable to those that don't like what they're reading. If there is too much "political propaganda full of hate" on Wikipedia, you're more than welcome to get your information from more reliable sources like Fox News, Truth social, etc. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Is what hate speech? Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2022

Baseless claims she is a conspiracy theorist. 172.74.72.65 (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ for answers as to why we say it. And try to bring something new to th e discusion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is there *any* Wikipedia bio that describes its subject as a "left-wing conspiracy theorist"? A quick search suggests that there isn't. My guess is Wikipedia's editors will have a "reliable source" about how such a thing is impossible. 159.178.247.2 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want to discuss a different subject as being a "left-wing conspiracy theorist", go to that page's talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven: Who is this "We"? I looked at the source list and fail to find any that aren't notoriously tendentious and left-leaning. SienkRJ (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

We as in Wikipedia, as to "notoriously tendentious and left-leaning" So, we go with what RS say. If you have any RS that contest this claim present them. Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The Independent is not left leaning. It prides itself on being independent and not tied to any particular politics. The BBC is neither left nor right. It gets attacked from both left and right which probably means it is right in the middle where it should be. I understand Fox News leans to the right. What other sources are "notoriously tendentious and left leaning please? Spinney Hill (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Facebook group

A footnote in the "Early career and activism" section states that the Facebook group, of which Greene was a moderator, has accused George Soros of owning "Acorn". I've added a wikilink to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), as I'm assuming they meant this group rather than Acorn Computers or one of the other entries listed at Acorn (disambiguation). ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

MTG isn't far right ?

Look, I don't like her as much as the next person. She's (BLP violation removed) and has some dumb takes..but that doesn't make her "far-right". Why do we feel the need to label people we don't like as either a Commie or Nazi. Why is it always the extreme ends of the ideology? Why always assume the worst and blatantly lie ? I'll never understand this. Especially making it to where you can't edit it. That comes off super cowardly to me. 174.213.161.138 (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a reflection of what has been printed in reliable sources, which describe her as far-right. The page is semiprotected to prevent disruption from POV pushers and others who seek to cause disruption by introducing information that is not supported by reliable sources. --SamX 05:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Greene is an adherent of Christian nationalism, and the ideology is a clear example of far-right politics. Any attempt to turn the United States into a Christian nation is clearly anti-democratic, and threatens the human rights of American citizens. Dimadick (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

As Pat Paulsen used to say: "Picky, picky, picky." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, RS say she is far-right. Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

News articles rarely refer to her as far right, at least not in the first sentence. It's far more common in opinion pieces by Democratic Party supporters. My concern is that writing in a highly partisan tone undermines readers confidence in the fairness of the writing. I have that reaction when I read conservative media stories that begin by referring disparagingly to liberals and progressives. TFD (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Some of them are not even American. Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

We've already had RfCs on extemist in the lede and conspiracy theorist in the opener. Third time's not always a charm, so go down this road again if you must. Zaathras (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

In fact, I too voted in favor of the "extremist in the lead" RfC question.[6] Note what the closing editor said: "Participants agree that this description (not of the subject, but of her ideas and theories) is well sourced and due." Neither of these RfCs were about whether to call her far right in the lead, and in fact the "extremist in the lead" RfC would tend to show a consensus against it. TFD (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree, thises RFC's were not about labeling her. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Whether it was about her directly or her views isn't relevant. The point here is an extremely tiny handful of editors have argued here, on noticeboards, and on Jimbo Wales talk page, to list a few recently, have this outmoded resistance to labeling extremism as such, despite the abundance of reliable sources that support it. Zaathras (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a clear assumption of bad faith. I have always argued that we should label extremism as such, but that we should avoid labelling people. And so did the participants in the last RfC.

There is a lot of literature about why it is wrong to label people, and I could not find any that argue it's a good thing. I expect accusations of political correctness and wokeness to come from people with certain views. If I say hate the sin but love the sinner, they will say that I am favoring the criminal over the victim. I don't expect liberals or progressives to sink to that level. TFD (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2022

You are writing false information about this person - you are breaking the law. 2601:8A:500:4FE0:0:0:0:47A4 (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. BlueNoise (Désorienté? It's just purple) 00:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

What law are we breaking, see WP:NLT.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Her mother?

It's never mentioned. Perhaps MTG emerged in full armour from her father's forehead like Athena from Zeus. 62.99.89.51 (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe we have been unable to find out anything about her? Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If you find anything in reliable sources that counters this mythological theory, please feel free to link it here and the article can always be updated. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Since I dropped a mention of this at the beginning of the month, I have since dug deeper and found that MTG's mother does exist and is alive and well. She is still not addressed or mentioned in reliable sources, so that is still a peculiar omission. But until RS mention either her or the omission itself, I don't feel comfortable disclosing discovery details, as she is not in and of herself a notable person. Zaathras (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Climate change

[7]

@RCraig09: According to WP:FRINGE, we need to balance fringe claims like this with mainstream refutations: While pseudoscience may, in some cases, be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views.

It is not a good idea to add stupid things people said to the article without refuting them. Knowledgeable people will conclude from what she said, "oh, Greene is an ignorant boob who right, Greene is someone who even believes in Jewish space lasers, no wonder shedoes not understand what climate change actually is", but those are a minority. As it is, the quote serves as WP:PROFRINGE propaganda. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Greene is an ignorant boob who does not understand what climate change actually is, is the mainstream point-of-view of this particular individual. It is why "far-right conspiracy theorist" is an equal-footing descriptor of her in the lede, alongside politician and business owner. Zaathras (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Not a reason to have text violating WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I understand your concern, but WP:FRINGE is not particularly applicable here while WP:WIKIVOICE is. In the /* Political positions */ subsection we're talking about, we are not trying to present Greene's opinion as fact. We're presenting it—in context—as her position and not as fact, which is actually preferred under WP:WIKIVOICE. Nevertheless, your point is made, and I'm planning to add a sentence that her position overlooks the damage caused by climate change, which should make everyone here happy. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I had this discussion often, every time on the Talk page of another climate change denier. Instead of repeating the reasoning that eventuelly leads to deletion or addition of mainstream refuation, here are some links:

• Talk:Alexander Gorodnitsky#His views on climate change
• Talk:Thomas Sowell/Archive 4#Climate Change Section
• Talk:Roy Spencer (meteorologist)#Intelligent design (about climate change denial and ID)
• Talk:Benny Peiser#PROFRINGE article.

Can we please not do it again? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Current version is fine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Whoa; TL;DR. I'm actually OK with not adding a sentence re scientific consensus, because I think WP:WIKIVOICE governs this situation where it's clear we're merely presenting a subject's opinion or political position. In general, though, maybe you'd have faster results if you simply added a canned sentence of scientific consensus, rather than removing another editor's statement of subject's opinion and risking another long discussion. (I think we're OK now, here, in this instance.) —RCraig09 (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling and Zaathras, I am not a fan of Greene. Far from it. But WP:BLP policy applies to every living person everywhere on Wikipedia. Calling her an "ignorant boob" is not acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Replaced by a fact. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The term "ignorant boob" would seem to be a redundancy. Contrast with Barney Fife yelling, "You're a boob, Gomer!" The "ignorant" part was understood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is about articles about mainstream and fringe theories, not the people who advocate fringe theories. We don't have to explain in each article about a fringe theory advocate that their views are wrong and may only do so if sourced to an article that mentions them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 04:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is about articles about mainstream and fringe theories, not the people who advocate fringe theories Untrue.

WP:FRINGEBLP is part of WP:FRINGE, and it says, Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame. However, the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure the nature of a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise.

Other quotes from WP:FRINGE:

• While pseudoscience may, in some cases, be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views.
• Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theories. Discussion of mainstream ideas should be sourced from reliable mainstream sources. Links to non-fringe articles in fringe articles can also help aid the reader in understanding and remove the threat of creating a walled garden.

may only do so if sourced to an article that mentions them True. But if we cannot balance the bullshit with facts, we have to delete the bullshit too in order to avoid promoting fringe ideas. See above, and see the four discussions I linked.

Why do I have to waste time on explaining things you should be able to look up yourself, even after I linked four older discussions where I explained the same things? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Was this not resolved by RCraig09 with this edit? ––FormalDude (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Certainly articles about any person should include criticism that has prominence in reliable sources. It crosses the line as a violation of both weight and synthesis when we add our own criticisms by adding sources that do not mention the subject. We are saying that reliable sources about the subject are poorly written and we will improve on them. Ironically, hitting readers over the head with a sledgehammer undermines our statement that her views are in conflict with science. TFD (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Here's a link to an article by Evan Schaeffer, a lawyer and writer, who explains why overstatement weakens your argument. TFD (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing with an unspecified person who proposes that we should "hit readers over the head with a sledgehammer" and use "overstaements". Could you please do that at the place where that person did that, instead of here? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

They're just using a straw man fallacy–not unusual for TFD. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Find a reliable source for her retraction from QAnon and include it and the source or ask for it to be included here. The latter might be better as others may think the source not reliable. If she goes back on the retraction that should be included as well and that should also be sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinney Hill (talk • contribs) 10:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist?

Can you let me know the citation for this? TaiLi363 (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you note the tiny numbers in brackets found throughout the article? Those are called citations. Zaathras (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

TaiLi363, Marjorie Taylor Greene#cite note-4. — ^Clyde!_Franklin! 03:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

And this is a perfect example of the rampant political bias on Wikipedia. Make a statement like this, then protect the page from any editing so no one can disagree. But this is not acceptable. If you want to say that she's been accused of being a conspiracy theorist, that is an accurate statement. But saying she is a conspiracy theorist as if it's an established fact like the sun rising in the East, is not neutral POV and that kind of statement would never be accepted on the page of any left leaning politician.100.15.73.17 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It is a fact. See the sources in the article, especially at Marjorie Taylor Greene#cite note-4. See her support of QAnon and "Jewish space lasers". Take your head out of the sand and drop your partisanship. This bitching and moaning without any reliable sources backing up your arguments will always go nowhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

You didn't read my comment. I am not disputing that many reputable sources have said she endorsed conspiracy theories. But which of those sources officially pronounce her a "conspiracy theorist"? Is there some defined and determinate ruling, like being placed on the sex offender registry? The way it reads is ridiculous. It's more accurate simply to say that she has endorsed conspiracy theories in the past. I realize this page was locked before the election because you wanted it to read as negatively as possible, but how about going back to NPOV now? On top of that, she no longer supports QAnon and has since retracted many of her previous claims: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/04/marjorie-taylor-greene-regret-qanon-conspiracy-claims.html 100.15.73.17 (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

This matter was settled several months ago. See Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene/Archive_3#Conspiracy_theorist_in_lede. Zaathras (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC),

Nowhere in that conversation do I see the acknowledgement that she has retracted many of her former conspiracy theories, including QAnon, as noted in the link I provided above.100.15.73.17 (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Not at all relevant. Claiming to walk back a few of her earlier, crazier claims doesn't hold water as she continues to deny the results of the 2020 election, push the kitty litter in schools hoax, and so on. Zaathras (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It may not be relevant to you personally, since it weakens your case, but it's relevant context if you are going to label this person a conspiracy theorist.100.15.73.17 (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking personally, I was speaking in context of Wikipedia policy. We follow what reliable sources say about a subject, if you don't like that, you really have no recourse other than to leave. Zaathras (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

You aren't including the reliable sources that say she has retracted her conspiracy theory claims. That's known as cherry picking. Also, per wiki policy, no one has ownership of articles, not even you.100.15.73.17 (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no need to include any such thing, as it isn't relevant. More below, so this isn't continued in 2 places at once. Zaathras (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

of course it's relevant - its pertinent to the very claim that she is a conspiracy theorist. Once again selective logic. You have resorted to belligerence in the face of your flimsy argument being successfully challenged. 84.209.56.38 (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

At least the first two in the cite in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"Endorsing conspiracy theories" = "conspiracy theorist". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

OK... "Endorsing conspiracy theories" = "conspiracy theorist" that may be strictly true, but that's not a style that is consistent with other wiki pages. That's not how Rep. Lauren Boebert's page is written. It simply says that she has supported QAnon in the past. Similarly, a person convicted of theft is not normally labeled a "thief" in the lede, instead it will note that he/she was charged and convicted of theft. Same with other crimes. A person who is gay is not labeled as a homosexual in the lede either. On Anthony Weiner's wiki page, it doesn't even label him a sex offender in the first paragraph, even though unlike "conspiracy theorist" that is a defined label that is officially bestowed on someone.100.15.73.17 (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

If you have a a problem with another Wikipedia article, then make an argument there, not here. Zaathras (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the problem isn't with other articles, it's with this one. It's biased, it's not consistent with the way other articles are written, and doesn't mention that she has retracted her QAnon claims.100.15.73.17 (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Where have you provided evidence for that claim? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I provided it above, but here it is again. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/04/marjorie-taylor-greene-regret-qanon-conspiracy-claims.html 100.15.73.17 (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Greene makes a few token walk-backs is overshadowed by her current spate of conspiracy-mongering that continues through the present day. Zaathras (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't consider myself conservative, nor am I a US citizen or resident. Many of your users would consider me as a registered supporter of the British Labour Party as a raving lefty (which I am not.) I have read the piece from CNBC mentioned by user 100.15.73.17 and consider a summary it could be inserted in the article if it is properly summarised (note my spelling-its English and should not be altered. I put it in on purpose) However not being familiar with cnbc I do not know if it is considered a reliable source. Can any body help? It is not I think mentioned on the list of sources discusssed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Can anybody help with a source that mentions her going back on her retraction Spinney Hill (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC) Spinney Hill (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

CNBC (previously Consumer News and Business Channel) is simply the business reporting division of NBC 100.15.73.17 (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

NBC I take to be the main stream television and radio company and normally reliable so unless there is a good objection I will see what can be done with the cnbc article when I am able. In the meantime has she gone back on the retraction user 100.15.73.17 cites? Spinney Hill (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2022

This article contains many untruths about Greene. She should sue you for slander. 47.223.47.79 (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I will treat this as genuine. Can you please see provide examples of what we say that is false and backed up by wp:rs? Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Just another trolling post. But I'm reminded of the old saying: "Never sue. They might prove it!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. And yeah she would never sue because she'd have to go through discovery. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

My edits of 26 November

I think "re-election" is better than "reelection"- nothing to do with reels (dancing or fishing lines.) I have left in "nominee" where appropriate but in an election "candidate" is better. "Nominee" is better when dealing with the result of a primary but with the actual election "candidate" is better.

Yes, "re-elect" is the preferred, although "reelect" is also used.[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

No, "reelect" is standard (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reelect). Moreover, "nominee" is more precise than "candidate". "Nominee" is to "candidate" as "finalist" is to "contestant." AlsoWukai (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

So by that reasoning the "nominee" is the person who wins the election-in this case the member of congress. I don't think that follows because in this case MTG won the election and sits in Congress.Spinney Hill (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Spinney Hill (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

During the primary, she was a (or the) candidate for her party. By winning her primary she was re-nominated, and then was a candidate for re-election (or reelection). By winning the general election, she is both the representative and the representative-elect, so to speak. Though when a candidate succeeds themself in office, I don't think you'll see [whatever]-elect so much. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the nominee is not the person who wins the general election. Nominees are like finalists. Not all finalists are winners. AlsoWukai (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2022

In the first sentence, please remove the comma after "far-right" ("conspiracy" is not an adjective in the phrase "far-right conspiracy theorist"). TWM03 (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done @Davide King: Please take care to not introduce punctuation errors in your copyediting. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2022

This article is not bilaterally written. Clearly the author does not like the subject. A lot of conjecture and personal emotion went into the writing. Request rewrite with non partisan point of view. 2600:8805:194A:F300:89DB:BF:1158:D886 (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is based upon what wp:rs say. If you have any sources that contradict what we say please produce them. Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The OP is a typical troll and won't be back, at least not under that IP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

2022 Election Results

Georgia District 14 2022 99% of the votes counted Marjorie Taylor Green (R) 170,003 votes 65.9% Marcus Flowers (D) 88,074 votes 34.1% Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=election+results+district+14+Georgia+2022&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari Easeltine (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

NPOV - BLP noncompliance

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.

---

There are enough blatant BLP violations in this article to consider it WP:ATTACK, starting with the partisan opinions/allegations stated in WikiVoice. I'm quite disappointed that Muboshgu, being an administrator who knows better, reverted my tags claiming drive-by tagging. I know what an attack page looks like, and what smearing political opposition looks like, and so do our readers which is far more important than what we think about each other's actions. We've been through enough of this nonsense about conspiracy theories being stated in wikivoice instead of using intext attribution, so why is it still happening? Articles like this are destroying WP's credibility, and we haven't even begun to feel the brunt of what's being said about us across social media by influential people like Elon Musk who has been relentless. These are the kinds of things that get management thinking more seriously about AI solutions. Have we not learned our lesson, yet? WP is not tabloid news, breaking news, rumor, or gossip, and should not be noncompliant with NPOV or BLP but that is exactly how the lead comes across and why I tagged it. Either fix it or put the tags back. I am not going to waste my time arguing the obvious. Atsme 💬 📧 16:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay. That's a lot of words saying precious little. (Btw, I support Mubogshu's revert.) TrangaBellam (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure it is obvious, as we have a lot of sources for everything we say. WP:FALSEBALANCE may well apply, if the majority of sources say X and no sources contest it, is it NPOV to say it is only a claim or opinion held by some? And how do attribute 5 sources or 10 sources, do we list them all "according to CNN, ABC, BBC, The guardian"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Bring a better argument than that because we're talking about an Attack page here so come up with something substantative. Partisan smear campaigns are noncompliant with BLP and that is what we have - partisan smear by biased media, and does not qualify as reliable sourcing. Read our policies and refresh your memory or do want me to add them all right here? You should know better. I am now thinking this should go to BLPN as an attack page. This is too serious to quibble over it here on the TP. Atsme 💬 📧 17:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

"partisan smear by biased media, and does not qualify as reliable sourcing" ⟶ WP:RSN. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, let's head back to WP:RSN, where we can again affirm that WaPo, AJC, NYT, The Hill, Politico, NBC News, The Guardian, et al., are reliable sources, and that coverage on this wiki page reflects the coverage in those reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No we are not, you are. If anything I would argue we err too far on the side of caution in order to obey wp:npov. So how about YOU making some substantive objections to what we say. Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

An "attack page" is one that "is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced". This article is quite well-sourced, particularly regarding Greene's embrace of right-wing extremism, political violence, partisan conspiracy theories, and anti-Semitic tropes. Fundamental site policies—including WP:BLP and WP:NPOV—not only allow but require the presentation of properly sourced but "negative" material. The mere presence of "negative" material does not make this an "attack page"—again, policy is quite clear that attack pages are distinguished by unsourced or poorly sourced negative material. These aren't complicated distinctions and experienced editors should be familiar with them. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to waste my time arguing the obvious. Well, clearly, it's not that obvious. If you're going to claim that the entire article is WP:ATTACK and violates WP:BLP, then the WP:ONUS is on you to support it with specifics. I can see room for article improvement through editing, but nothing that supports the suggestion that the article qualifies as an attack page. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

This reads exactly like the sort of contribution that comes from IPs and new accounts and is routinely answered by saying "you need to make specific suggestions", "this is not a forum" and "read WP:this and WP:that". --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• We have thousands of articles calling people conspiracy theorists, and I Oppose Atsme's proposal for in text attribution. It would be grossly inappropriate to bloat the first sentence with literally hundreds of individual attributions of sources around the planet all bashing Greene as a conspiracy nut. I find dozens of cites applying the precise phrase "conspiracy theorist" to Greene, and countless more sources saying the same thing in other equivalent phrasing.
  No concrete problems have been identified with the article, I see no other suggested edits, and after reviewing the article the content appears to be a WELL SOURCED and ACCURATE SUMMARY of Reliable Sources. I Endorse removal of the tag as inappropriate and unnecessary.
  If anyone has objections with how international and mainstream Reliable Sources are covering a subject, they need to log off to fight that battle out there, not complain here. If and when those Sources change how they cover a subject, we will update Wikipedia to accurately summarize that new coverage. Alsee (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "bashing Greene as a conspiracy nut" Comparison to Greene and her bigotry is unflattering for the average conspiracy theorist. Dimadick (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  What Alsee said above is spot on - with the caveat that use of a reliable source is not carte blanche to not use your brain. There are instances where something in a reliable source is not quite so straight forward and that sometimes requires careful consideration. That's what WP:UNDUE is for. There are certainly instances where attribution is necessary, or inclusion is not and discretion is needed. However, I don't see that to be the case in this article (and neither does anyone else). In fact, leeway has already been given in that significant coverage in the article uses direct quotes, or refers to direct quotes, all of which means that everything that is being said here is already attributed. Further, the onus is on Atsme to give specifics and she has not done so, declaring such to waste my time arguing the obvious. To beat a dead horse, if there's something specific that is of concern, address it specifically, but tagging the entire page as needing attention (or trying to define it as an attack page) is utter nonsense and has resulted in a complete waste of everyone's time addressing it. This discussion should be closed. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

So. You don't like articles on right-wing politicians because reliable sources are used to accurately reflect the subject's own words and actions. We should instead write glowing hagiographies so, um, Elon Musk won't get mad at the Wikipedia. Seems to be the vibe. Zaathras (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I vigorously oppose whitewashing this or any article to cater to the unstable multibillionaire Musk who has just restored the viciously crude Nazi Andrew Anglin to Twitter. WP:NOTAFORUM style ranting by a highly experienced editor is quite troubling. Cullen328 (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's apparently Wikipedia's fault that reliable sources aren't blowing smoke up the subject's ass and instead reporting/analysing/discussing the subject's own words and actions, you know, calling a spade a spade (or what is typically referred to as 'journalism'). Re "I am not going to waste my time arguing the obvious" — no, you're just going to waste everyone else's time by not even bothering to go chapter and verse with what you find to be objectional. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Really tired of the "damaging our credibility" argument, mainly because that really does not seem to be happening, but also because perceived credibility is never as important as true reliability. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  The way to really damage our credibility would be to sweep the nuttiness of such people under the rag. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"influential people like Elon Musk" Influential liars and propagandists. If he is criticizing us, we must be doing something right. Dimadick (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2022 (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.

Simple proposal to improve neutrality

The first sentence of the lede is in violation of MOS:FIRST, which calls for the opening sentence to focus on straightforward identifying information, which in cases like this means name, when born, nationality, that they are a politician, and what office they hold. So a simple change is to remove , businesswoman, and far-right conspiracy theorist[3][4]. The fact that she was a businesswoman isn't that important and can be worked in later in the lede if necessary. The opprobrium about her political views, reliably sourced though it is, is already abundant in the rest of the lede and can wait until the first sentence is over. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed in multiple RfCs. The consensus time and time again has been that the first sentence of the lede is fine. Curbon7 (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

See above. Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar regarding the "businesswoman" portion, but her primary notability is for her over-the-top conspiracy theorizing... to the extent that it arguably outranks "U.S. Representative" as the primary "straightforward identifying information". There are hundreds of Representatives who are largely unknown outside of their district (or even largely unknown inside their districts). In contrast Greene is widely known known for the wacky and extremist things she says, rather than for any official status and performance as legislator.
If someone wins an Olympic gold medal or is a serial murderer, the reason for their notability clearly outranks profession as identifying information. You identify them by stating their primary reason for Notability. Alsee (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see where it violates MOS:FIRST. More importantly, as a BLP, the lead sentence needs to conform to MOS:FIRSTBIO. What Alsee has pointed out is point #5: The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.) Honestly, if it weren't for her promotion of various conspiracy theories, this article would be a stub. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a settled matter. Zaathras (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It didn't seem to me that it was a settled matter, since that RfC was stated as being about the lede as a whole. Yes, there was some discussion about the first sentence in particular, but sentiment about that seemed more evenly split. I disagree with the arguments about notability being made here, but I know a brick wall when I see one, so I am striking the suggestion. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Are late night bits encyclopedic?

I don't know if Kimmel's quips are necessary even if I agree. 173.212.70.183 (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's debatable, but it depends on the circumstances and depth of coverage. Reading the section, I thought the last paragraph seemed out of place until I saw she contacted US Capitol Police. The Streisand effect is real. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request / addition.

Should this article be added somewhere? 2601:183:4A80:E570:CD44:ACD4:6674:3602 (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSWEEK, that publication is not generally considered to be a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

But per that: it’s not generally unreliable, so; does that give it a pass? 2601:183:4A80:E570:CD44:ACD4:6674:3602 (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I have seen this on Twitter, but I am not convinced that it meets WP:WEIGHT needed to be included. Please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's just a spat. You're right, it's undue weight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2022

remove the non factual description that she is "and far-right conspiracy theorist"

The sources cited are garbage and it shows a bias on your platform 172.56.161.69 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

No. -Roxy the dog 17:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the sources we use take it to wp:rsn, but first read wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's mission is essentially to accurately summarize what what Reliable Sources say about a subject. Large numbers of Reliable sources from around the planet describe Greene as "far-right" and/or "conspiracy theorist". If you believe they are in error then you need to raise the issue with them. We will happily change the article to remove those terms, after many or most of those sources have revised or retracted those terms from their publications. Alsee (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Potential Name Change

With the finalization of her divorce, will she drop "Greene" from her name? It is something to think about! 71.69.165.96 (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

While it would be unusual to retain one's hyphenated married name after a divorce, her branding around "MTG' would be hard to let go of. Guess we shall see. Zaathras (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is biased. Labeling her “far right conspiracy theorist” shouldn’t be the function of Wikipedia. The moderator’s “reliable sources” argument is total bs. Reliable in whose view?

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Make this article neutral. At least say “that that sources said she is a conspiracy theorist” instead of passing your judgement that she is a conspiracy theorist. That is not up to Wikipedia to decide. 2001:569:5316:F100:5DAD:B906:7CC3:8E90 (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC) We present what the preponderance of reliable sources say. There is overwhelming consensus on this description of her among journalists and academics. In fact, it's what made her notable, long before she held office. So, Wikipedia isn't "deciding" anything. See the section above, where another anonymous user disputed the label, for any additional answers to your query. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia has been a top ten website worldwide for many years. In large part, that is because we summarize what reliable sources say about various topics. Wikipedia editors interested in evaluating the reliability of various sources study these sources based on the language at WP:RS, and consensus about common sources is expressed at WP:RSP. If many reliable sources call a person a "conspiracy theorist" and none or almost none disagree with that claim, then Wikipedia will also call that person a "conspiracy theorist". So, the burden is on you to furnish links to reliable sources that say, in effect, "You know what? Marjorie Tayler Green is not actually a conspiracy theorist, and here are the logical reasons why". Where are those sources that convincingly refute the claim? Do they exist? Cullen328 (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Actions have consequences. You cannot suggest that the Camp Fire (2018) was caused by Rothschild "space solar generators" and then wonder why reliable news sources call you a far right conspiracy theorist. Greene has a history of disowning the wackier comments that she has made, and she deleted the Facebook post where she made the Rothschild comments. This is a lot like David Icke, who also says wacky things that involve Jewish people, and then wonders why he is criticized. Quote of the day from Ms Greene: "If they are beaming the suns energy back to Earth, I’m sure they wouldn’t ever miss a transmitter receiving station right??!! I mean mistakes are never made when anything new is invented. What would that look like anyway? A laser beam or light beam coming down to Earth I guess. Could that cause a fire? Hmmm, I don’t know. I hope not! That wouldn’t look so good for PG&E, Rothschild Inc, Solaren or Jerry Brown who sure does seem fond of PG&E."[9]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Fix errors

Update paragraph 4 under Section "Tenure" to use the correct name, and in paragraph 7 of the same section add a citation for the first sentence, ideally one without a paywall. 2603:7000:AB00:7A:A927:D0B5:C9D2:B5E5 (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Be more specific. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't see where a "wrong name" is used in the paragraph. —C.Fred (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done It was "Green" and the change was done yesterday but not noted as complete by the editor: [10] ButlerBlog (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Update section 4.14.1.1 to remove the last sentence, "She is unlikely to be able to serve on a committee for the rest of her term in the 117th Congress.[342]" This sentence is outdated as the 118th congress began on January 3rd, 2023. Raddyroro (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2023

Under "Political positions" > "Abortion" (4.1) please change/remove following sentence: "In 2021, Greene falsely claimed that the Plan B contraceptive "kills a baby in the womb"; Plan B actually prevents ovulation and thus prevents pregnancy, instead of terminating a pregnancy.".

That sentence is false as levonorgestrel ("Plan B") can prevent implantation und is thus abortifacient. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4313438/ 95.74.29.219

Please change/replace that sentence with this: "In 2021, Greene claimed that the Plan B contraceptive "kills a baby in the womb"; this is supported by evidence as Plan B can prevent the implantation of the fertilized egg cell (blastocyst) in the uterus und thus terminate a pregnancy." (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4313438/)

You need a source saying this is not false, not your wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Please take this request to Talk:Levonorgestrel, where the article currently states FIGO has stated that: "review of the evidence suggests that LNG [levonorgestreol] ECPs cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Language on implantation should not be included in LNG ECP product labeling." – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

31 June

Para 4 of her views on COVID states “Greene urged Biden to respond to the letter by June 31; June has only 30 days.” I see that it is sourced, but I have serious concerns about the inclusion of this relatively trivial detail in the context of such a controversial article. Yes, it was a bungle on her part, but hardly worthy of inclusion other than to poke fun at her (and I do agree it is funny). Where we can detail relevant aspects of a politician’s views/actions, without drawing the ire of all those who (wrongly) accuse Wikipedia of being biased against MTG and the like, I think we have a duty to. I think the sentence diminishes, rather than adds to, the overall quality of the article, and I cringed when I read it; this coming from someone who is certainly no fan of MTG. The rest of her views outlined make it clear just how intelligent she is and those speak for themselves, so this sentence really adds nothing to that. So i am suggesting removing that single sentence, but keen to hear others’ thoughts and what the consensus is. Cbe46 (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I kind of agree, we can't have every stupid thing she does or says. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I went ahead and removed that detail. If someone need joke material to make fun of MTG, there's already a lot of laughable stuff in the article. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 14:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

MTG on Wikipedia

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1624100664195395604

soibangla (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

So a paid editor, so who wants to own up to the wp:coi? Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The only proper response: lmao. Curbon7 (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

In more seriousness, it is more-than-likely one of the many non-ECP editors who post on this talk page "WhY aRe YoU cAlLiNg HeR fAr-RiGhT". The article is very well-monitored. The only editor who has made non-constructive edits recently is DaBabyindahouse, but they have a history of low-quality edits to various other topics, so I doubt its them. Curbon7 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

In the video, Lara Trump says that "it is all on purpose". No it isn't, the article summarizes the things that reliable sources have said about MTG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Then it is in fact on purpose, and the purpose is to reflect reality. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course, what has not happened is we are on notice there is a COI account out there, and will be that bit more vigilant and on the look out for it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Biased Politicization of Wikipedia

Without my wishing to challenge specific allegations about statements made by MTG, this article reads like a hit-job by a political opponent. It does NOT sound like an unbiased review of the politician's many statements, positions, and actions as a legislator or in other facets of her life. It relies on guilt-by-association to damn the Congresswoman. An unbiased view would abstain from such manipulation of readers.

Sourcing the claims from other media which may single out views it finds most abhorrent does not justify Wikipedia providing the same biased views. This article needs a major revision without bias -- while that may be difficult in these days of politicization of all aspects of life, it is necessary and overdue. Fredricwilliams (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This article needs a major revision which I strongly encourage you to initiate. Please proceed. soibangla (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

For the record, as the person who is credited as having gotten this to GA two years ago (though I simply was a mere copyeditor), the article has diminished in quality since then, but it has nothing to do with biases or whatnot, rather the insertion of WP:UNDUE or irrelevant content and a return to overquoting and WP:PROSELINE. Curbon7 (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

We can't act on vague assertions you need to tell us what is wrong and why so we can either fix the problem or decide it is not one. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• We decide what to cover based on what the sources cover. If you think we're including stuff that is marginal to MTG's biography, show it by comparing coverage of different aspects. But starting from the premise that you know what an "unbiased view" of MTG looks like, separate from the sources, isn't a workable way to approach the article because regardless of how well-intentioned you are, it would functionally be inserting your personal opinion into the article and using it to "correct" what the sources say, which isn't really how an encyclopedia works. We summarize what higher-quality sources say about MTG; if they say that she's done and said a lot of controversial things and indicate that that is a major aspect of her notability, then we have to reflect that. --Aquillion (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Petition to upload an Audio Voice File for Marjorie Taylor Greene

Given all U.S. Senators and Presidents have audio voice files, it makes sense that U.S. Representatives should too. Given Marjorie Taylor Greene is a lot more controversial of a representative I have went our of my way to find a sufficiently neutral audio clip of her speaking on school shootings and recounting an experience of hers where she was held hostage in her school. the audio file is as follows:

File:Marjorie Taylor Greene on School Shootings.ogg

Additionally, the date this was recorded at was February 4, 2021. I believe this file should be sufficiently neutral as it doesn't bring up anything remotely political and only really mentions her past experiences and that school shootings are bad. If you want to verify the audio yourself you can feel free to do so also. LosPajaros (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Files have to be made into a link with brackets, [[: ]], I added those for you...with a colon which just makes it into a clickable link and not embed it like we would if this was the article. As for the content, I don't see why not, sounds like a useful addition. Zaathras (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The statement is too controversial for inclusion. The gunman did not "take her entire school hostage." As she mentions later, it took place down the hall, where several students were taken hostage. The Independent has an article about it.[11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs)

• I agree that we should have a more generic soundbite. I took a look through C-Span and there are plenty of ordinary clips. Curbon7 (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• How is this not generic? All politicians embellish. If we're going to hold out for politician soundbites that 100% literal truth, we'll never have a usable file. Zaathras (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The soundbite I put up here doesn't appear to me to be any less generic than any of the ones used for other Representatives of U.S. Senators. I don't see how it could really invite any sort of controversy aside from someone saying she slightly overemphasized her direct relationship with the hostage situation. Additionally, the audio is relatively clear of outside interference and expresses her natural speaking pattern effectively. LosPajaros (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments on Teixeira

I think it's hard to argue that this brief sentence two-sentence summary regarding her comments on the leaker is undue, given the extensive coverage it has gotten. In addition to the sources in the article, see eg. [12][13][14] - note that these are not sources mentioning Greene in passing; they're entire articles devoted specifically to the position she took there. The wording could possibly be tweaked in various ways, but a sentence or two in the body noting that it's a position she took seems reasonable for something that got this level of coverage. EDIT: Since the main objection seems to have been to a lack of RS coverage, and there's better coverage now, I've restored a rewritten version - replacing the second sentence, which summarized the leaks in a way that didn't really matter for MTG's side of the story, with comments by Liz Cheney that have gotten substantial coverage, illustrating the significance of Greene's remarks. I've also replaced a few sources with higher-quality or more neutral ones that are more specifically about Greene. --Aquillion (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with the inclusion, including some of your sources. Huffpost is not suitable for contentious BLP topics, especially around politics. Not only that, this isn't an article about Teixeira, or Liz Cheney, and these edits are very much wandering into WP:COATRACK and WP:!HERE territory. There is already prose on 2023_Pentagon_document_leaks#United_States about the leak and MTG's commentary, so WP:ONUS aside, it's already covered in the right place (which is not here). My issue isn't with the number of sources, it's the depth of coverage, as the sources all largely say the same thing. MTG is a highly polarizing figure, so anything she says will gain attention, and pundits will jump all over it if it can drive engagement on their website. WP:NOTEVERYTHING is suitable for a BLP. Has anything of substance come from the tweet? Has she officially been sanctioned by her peers in Congress? Has any policy changed? Will this comment be relevant or notable in WP:10YEARTEST?

Please consider self-reverting, as I'm not going to get into an edit war today, could you perhaps seek consensus when in a dispute instead of piling on more controversy? Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I am less sure, yes it has gotten coverage. But so does every stupid thing she utters (which lets face it, is almost everything she says). The question here is what does it tell us we do not already know? What does it add to the article we need to say, we do not already say? Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about this per WP:NOTNEWS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

A sitting member of Congress actively defending a traitor, not just a one-off quip, far and away surpasses wp:notnews. Zaathras (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

At one point, historically, we used to refer to people that exposed the government and its representatives, especially when suspected of lying to the public, as "whistleblowers". But now since we've established this is contentious it should be removed until consensus is reached. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Not a relevant point, as no reliable sources characterize Jack Teixeira as a whistleblower, other than to deride right-wing attempts at it. Zaathras (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree. His apparent motivation was not to alert the public but to impress a small circle of online friends. TFD (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

So which is it, is he a traitor or a kid who just wanted to impress a small circle of online friends? Sounds like a nothing burger, hence why it shouldn't be included in this BLP. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The article should not be a collection of quotes. The edit should summarize what she posted and explain why it is significant. Is she for example defending treason, as Zaathras says? Then use a source that says she is facing that accusation. BTW, per WP:BLPCRIME, please do not accuse people of criminal offenses when they have not been convicted and in this case not even charged with the offense. In fact there is no evidence that could result in a charge of treason.

I agree its hard to assess the long-term significance of something that just happened and it is best to wait before adding current events to any article. TFD (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Particularly in the case of such a controversial figure who is now in a de facto leadership position in her party, it is important to cite her exact words, lest we descend into endless arguments about what she "actually" said. But if you'd like me to instead paraphrase what she said, it might go something like:

Greene accused Biden, a white Christian man, of persecution of white Christian men by arresting a white Christian man credibly accused of leaking sensitive national security information, constituting major espionage felonies that commonly result in long sentences in supermax prisons, while also falsely characterizing the man as a whistleblower who supposedly exposed that American military forces were in active combat with Russians in Ukraine, except they really weren't, and which Biden had supposedly concealed from the American people

Better? soibangla (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

MTG says a lot of things and we have to be NOTEVERYTHING and base inclusion on the weight of the sources. Are sources picking up her defense of Teixeira or are they treating it like a standard Trump tweet? I say it's too soon to include anything on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Well there's the NYT:

The far-right is trying to paint Jack Teixeira in a favorable light as an antiwar whistleblower ... Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, posted a tweet (using the name Jake instead of Jack) that said, "Jake Teixeira is white, male, christian, and antiwar. That makes him an enemy to the Biden regime."[15]

And WaPo:

In case Carlson's defenses of Teixeira were too subtle, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) offered her own take ... Greene frames Teixeira’s alleged actions as “[telling] the truth” about Ukraine because this allows her (as it allowed Carlson) to position him as a conscientious, ethical actor worthy of defense — and, moving one degree outward, to suggest that he’s only been subjected to arrest because he’s a White Christian man.[16]

Her statement, this time, is particularly reckless and dangerous, especially given her new role as a de facto party and congressional leader who has security clearance to sit on the Homeland Security committee and has at least twice presided over the House, and is sufficiently sourced to warrant a couple of sentences. It wouldn't be so notable if she were still just another member of congress or some bloviating commentator. soibangla (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

We avoid "endless arguments about what she "actually" said" by using reliable sources to summarize and interpret what she said. This may include partial quotes, if writers of secondary sources consider them important to include.

The approach of provide all the evidence and let the reader decide is antithetical to encyclopedic writing. Readers want to know how information is interpreted by mainstream sources and if they want to question them they can go to the sources and conduct their own research.

I notice that you added editorialization to your description when you called Biden "a white Christian man." Your implication is that it is absurd for Biden to be anti-white and anti-Christian because he is white and Christian. But commentary should always be implicit and sourced. TFD (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

So, apart from my "editoralization" on a Talk page to illustrate a point, would you prefer a paraphrasing of what she said similar to what I wrote, or something you might suggest, rather than her actual words? Based on what many have hollered in many venues in recent years, which only those living off the grid in the woods can be unaware of, can there be any dispute that she is referencing a supposed war against white Christian men in this case? And in the context of a man who just happens to be a white Christian man but which is entirely irrelevant to what he is accused of doing? Does that help to understand just how incendiary her remarks are? I welcome your proposed alternative language, though I hope to avoid this discussion henceforth. soibangla (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not arguing that her comments were not incendiary, just that all content must be properly sourced and phrased according to policy and guidelines. If you don't like the rules, get them changed and don't assume other editors have partisan reasons for following them.

Incidentally, your ''WaPo'' source is an analysis, hence not rs, so I will use the ''NYT'' article: "Like others on the far right, Greene portrayed John Teireira, who was charged with leaking sensitive Department of Defense documents, as a whistleblower. She tweeted: he "is white, male, christian, and antiwar. That makes him an enemy to the Biden regime.""

One of the reasons for "no synthesis" is that we don't get into sophomoric arguments, such as whether or not it makes sense to describe a white male Christian as anti-white etc. A lot of editors I have come across say that the Proud Boys cannot be racist because their leader is black. Do you buy that argument? Of course Biden isn't anti-white or anti-Christian, but that's an irrational argument. TFD (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I stopped reading at If you don't like the rules because I sensed this discussion might be going this way, which I seek to avoid and I will now bow out. I believe my edit complied with policy. soibangla (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• your ''WaPo'' source is an analysis, hence not rs - hold on, wait, what? "Analysis" is part of the purpose of secondary WP:RSes, and secondary WP:RSes that provide interpretation and analysis are vital to covering complex subjects in the article voice - see WP:SECONDARY. A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. We rely on the analysis of high-quality WP:RSes to indicate what primary sources mean; provided such analysis comes from a high-quality secondary source and there's no indication that any sources of comparable quality contest it, the conclusions are properly treated as facts and stated as such in the article voice. It's absurd to suggest (as you seem to be) that all analysis is automatically opinion - if that were the case we'd barely be able to write articles at all, especially for subjects like history or sociology (where large swaths of any article are going to cover mainstream interpretation, analysis, and synthesis on historical documents in order to present an overarching conclusion of what those things mean.) Saying "this analysis is too new / isn't widely-supported enough / isn't from a good enough source / is contested by X and therefore we have to treat it as opinion" would at least be a defensible argument, even if I might disagree, but "this isn't a WP:RS because it's analysis" is nonsense. Producing interpretation and analysis that we can (sometimes) put in the article voice the entire point of a secondary source. By your interpretation no source would ever allow us to summarize what a quote means in the article voice, because any source making such a statement would be performing analysis or synthesis and therefore impermissible. (Or is your point that the Washington Post, specifically, uses the "analysis" label in an idiosyncratic way to indicate opinion? If this has been discussed in the past, I've forgotten, but granted my memory isn't always perfect - certainly if it's true, it ought to be on their WP:RSP entry, since it would be extremely unusual. Certainly I wouldn't treat an "analysis" label as meaning "opinion" for the reasons I've outlined above.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  See News organizations: editorials and analysis in news media are "are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Incidentally, the author of the "analysis" is described as a "national columnist," so yes it is an opinion piece. I do not think that arguments about whether or not this is a good policy are constructive. TFD (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Are sources picking up her defense of Teixeira or are they treating it like a standard Trump tweet - well, I mean, the article has six sources from high-quality WP:RSes, each of them articles devoted entirely to this statement (again, not passing mentions of it, but articles that are entirely about it), including three covering the quote itself and three more dedicated to Liz Cheney's response. I think that Cheney's response and the coverage of it, in particular, indicates its significance - when you have a statement getting entire articles devoted to it, and then the response to that statement getting entire articles devoted to it, I think it's difficult to argue that it's just a random tweet. Two bare sentences summarizing what she said and the reaction to it don't seem undue to me in that context. But if you don't feel that that's enough sources covering it, or you if you feel that there's some issue with the ones we're using currently, indicate the issue more specifically - there's a lot of coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

MTG says lots of stupid things. This is just one more. As to Teixeira being a "traitor", legally he's no such thing until or if he's convicted of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• She is a gaffe-a-minute personality, yes, but the coverage of her specific comments here have received significant attention. Lindsey Graham has singled her out specifically for criticism on this, though. Zaathras (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NOTEVERYTHING, again, these all seem like things that are better suited in a Reactions section on the page covering the leak itself, which I've already pointed out exists. We don't know if these exchanges will have any significant relevance in even a year, let alone 5 or 10. As many other editors here have pointed out, this article is in bad shape and there's no reason for us to let it get worse.

  Recently AOC had an ethics complaint filed against her and a confrontation with LOTT that garnered multiple RS covering the situation. Would you argue for inclusion of that on her BLP or no? Someone made a good argument here, Balancing aspects says, "a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news."

  As I mentioned above, if this goes anywhere, whether it be sanctions or censure, then I'd agree to its inclusion. Until then, it's pretty clear there is no consensus for the inclusion and any mention should be dropped from the article. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Whataboutism will not be engaged. Zaathras (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, how about the rest of the argument then? I'd also encourage you to tread carefully, per WP:ASPERSIONS. It's also worth noting that the article you linked give legitimate reasons why one might point out arguments made in similar situations. Consider "Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking)." Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually the complaint against AOC received very little attention in reliable sources relative to her overall coverage. It might have received a lot of attention in right-wing news outlets, but most of them are not reliable sources. TFD (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd categorize The Independent, LGBTQ Nation, or The Hill as right-wing (which all covered the AOC situation). I digress though, the same situation applies here. In relation to the overall coverage that could have made the news, in reality you have only a handful of sources largely repeating the same thing and syndicating the same coverage. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I said very little. For high profile people like her, one would expect ongoing coverage in major U.S. networks and prestigious newspapers. If you added in everything that had been mentioned in only one or a handful of reliable sources, this article would run into hundreds of pages. TFD (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeing consensus here for the inclusion of this coverage, so how do the other editors who believe it should be included want to proceed? Remove it or should we take this to BLP/N and/or RFC? Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Remove it as lacking weight for inclusion. If it goes anywhere, which at this point is unlikely, and major media run with it, we can reconsider inclusion. TFD (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

It has already been covered in "major media", and at least one member of her own party (a rare occurrence in the modern GOP) has called her out by name in condemnation. That is a sufficient bar for inclusion. Zaathras (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you think readers want to know everything that one of VP Cheney's daughters think on every issue? Her only reason for fame is her relation to someone whose false statements about Iraq had catastrophic consequences. TFD (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Added weight to support inclusion:

"GOP puts MTG 'on an island' over Pentagon leaker case". Politico. April 19, 2023.

"Even her own fellow diehard conservatives won’t follow the Georgia Republican in defense of the Air National Guardsman accused of leaking classified material." soibangla (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it makes no sense to defend someone as a whistleblower for leaking classified information with the only apparent motive of impressing his online friends. I'm just saying that we should wait to see how big this is. I don't think Politico adds much weight, since they cover everything including gossip. So other Republicans disagree with her - that happens all the time. Are they going to censure her or remove her from her committee assignments? My advice is to wait a week and see what happens. It's very difficult to assess the long term impact of what someone says especially if they are know to make frequent stupid statements. TFD (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Kcmastrpc I consider this discussion active and your removal of the content premature. Please restore it. soibangla (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I have no issue with the content being restored in the event there is a consensus reached here, but so far, that doesn't seem likely. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It has been restored, as discussion continues. Zaathras (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

And removed, as discussion continues. nableezy - 21:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Administrator note: I have protected the article to allow discussion to actually proceed. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at Arb Enforcement relating to this content. Editors may wish to provide context to the Admins there. SPECIFICO talk 23:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Time for a GAR?

The article has dramatically decreased in quality in the two years since it was promoted to GA. It may be time for a WP:GAR. Curbon7 (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Given that the page is under a consensus required restriction, it would probably fail criteria 5 (stability). ––FormalDude (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It also fails 1 (well-written) and 3 (broad in coverage). Curbon7 (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I think a GAR is certainly reasonable. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Consensus required

I'm just making note that this page is now subject to the consensus required editing restriction, which means Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish should have linked to Wikipedia:Consensus required, so there is the link. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"Sedition Caucus"

I'm not sure if the term "Sedition Caucus" is a good inclusion in the lead. I think it's more than fair to discuss her involvement in seditious activities in the lead such as her challenging the results of the presidential election, but stating as fact that she was "part of" a group whose page describes it directly as a "perjorative term" isn't a good idea imo. Looking at the 147 politicians included on the Sedition Caucus page, only nine (including MTG) have links to the article on their wiki page, none of which outright describe them as "members of the Sedition Caucus" - the only ones even mentioning the word sedition in the article text are Josh Hawley and Mo Brooks (for whom it's included as part of the "See also) section, and Gus Bilirakis and Ron Johnson (for whom it's included in quotes, one of which is directly quoting an op ed). Further to this, the term isn't even in the body of this article, just the lead.
I think it should be removed from the lead to read something like: and was part of the Sedition Caucus, a group of Republican legislators who unsuccessfully challenged votes, but this is probably too contentious for me to edit WP:BOLDly, so I'd appreciate input on this. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 01:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Minor grammar note

On this edit adding info about her expulsion from the HFC there was a typo, the word member should be plural.

"It was the first time the group ever voted to expel one of its member." MaximusEditor (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Good catch. Have edited it in. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

One sided opinion

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.

---

Whomever wrote this makes false allegations. And makes it look like fact. I think that muddles the site wikipedia. Fishwanda (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

provide one example of a claim we make that is not sourced to an RS? Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Citation #15 is from CNN, which has been proven to be a biased news source.Ulysses Grant Official (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Au contraire, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#CNN. An RfC as recently as 2020 ([17]) was overwhelmingly in favor of retaining CNN as a reliable source. Curbon7 (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it needs to be reassessed. There is definitely a deeper reason as to why CNN is reliable but FOX isn't. Ulysses Grant Official (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Then take it to RSN. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it has been proved unreliable.. Proved by who and on what basis? Statement of opinion is not proof.Spinney Hill (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2023 (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.