Jump to content

Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Wbenton (talk | contribs)
287 edits
Line 64: Line 64:


:[[Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies]] is an essay you should read, and you should also be aware that [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] requires that a claim not be '''unduly self-serving''', such as a perfunctory denial contradicted by the weight of [[WP:RS]] coverage. Greene is quite clearly a QAnon conspiracy theorist, per sources such as the New York Times. [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/03/us/politics/qanon-candidates-marjorie-taylor-greene.html] [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts|talk]]) 04:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies]] is an essay you should read, and you should also be aware that [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] requires that a claim not be '''unduly self-serving''', such as a perfunctory denial contradicted by the weight of [[WP:RS]] coverage. Greene is quite clearly a QAnon conspiracy theorist, per sources such as the New York Times. [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/03/us/politics/qanon-candidates-marjorie-taylor-greene.html] [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts|talk]]) 04:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Where are credible references backing up that she is a conspiracy theorist? Unless there are credible references (i.e. not liberal news media/fake news media) acclaiming that she is a conspiracy theorist, that smearing title should be removed as it's a political hack.


== Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021 ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021 ==

Revision as of 03:04, 15 January 2021

Template:WPUS50k

To add to article

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

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

Protected edit request on 5 November 2020

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

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

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

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

Protection

Nurg, this is a response to your post on my talk. I added full protection, following a request for semi-protection (writing from memory) on RfPP, because the reverting seemed to be a content dispute between 86.22.82.121, Randompointofview, and KidAd, about whether material was being repeated and where to place it. That is, it didn't look like vandalism or disruption from an IP. Are you saying I was wrong about that? SarahSV (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without picking apart whether it is a content dispute or something else, even if it is a content dispute, consider it in the light of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. 86.22.82.121 boldly made a change, KidAd reverted, 86.22.82.121 never took it to the Talk page, but continued to boldly make changes and then resorted to edit warring. Fortuitously, the initiating editor is an IP, so semi-protection should be enough, if not more than enough. Full protection unnecessarily locks all non-admins out of editing. Nurg (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nurg, we're not supposed to lock IPs out just because they're IPs. The edits have to be vandalism or in some other way disruptive (e.g. vandalism, COI, PAID, or similarly troubling). If it's a legitimate content dispute, full protection is appropriate. The three editors should open up a discussion. SarahSV (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please direct me to the specific points in the relevant policies about content dispute. I am finding this heavy protection quite disturbing, and wondering if there is a policy change I haven't caught up with. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this might be quickly remedied, but it hasn't, so I have delved into it further. 86.22.82.121 breached the Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule. Please unprotect the article and apply whatever measures are justified against 86.22.82.121. I see they have been warned for vandalism, though that is not what they did – they were edit warring. Nurg (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you're right that the IP reverted more than the others, so I've reduced to semi. SarahSV (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. You asked about the policy. See WP:SEMI: "Semi-protection should neither be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes." The question here is to what extent it was a valid content dispute. Anyway, I don't want to argue the point. Just leaving you the link for future reference. SarahSV (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Painful Obvious Anti-Candidate Bias

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

Please re-read WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOTFORUM. The ridiculous accusations you have made are without merit. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. However, however, having been involved with Wikipedia for more than a decade, I am thoroughly familiar with all the material to which you linked, including the WP:NPOV link I posted myself. If you're looking for a link war, please find a message forum. My comments regarding the heavy anti-candidate bias replete throughout this "article" stand as is.Clepsydrae (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You have a great link on you talk page, Bradv, and I'm reposting it here for your consideration and the consideration of others: How to write a great article. Clepsydrae (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have actual, specific things to say about content, say them. Vague rants claiming "heavy bias" from someone who believes that wikipedia needs to have a propaganda page with supposed "BLM criminal activity" calling it "a global and very well-known organization purporting to be "non-violent" [1] are not something likely to be taken seriously. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a misconception that "neutrality" means that the subject must be presented in a neutral way. This is not the case. "Neutrality" means that we cover the good and the bad of the subject in line with how it is covered in the reliable sources. So, this biography has a lot of negativity to it, but that's only a problem if it is not in line with the sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What changes would you like to see made? Also, please try to argue in good faith. Even if you disagree with the content of the article, I'm not aware of anyone trying to spread disinformation/misinformation, and the content of this article is not defamatory or libelous. What specific aspects of the article do you object to? Jacoby531 (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You will always find though that if someone is falsely labelled as "far right", as is the case here, most people take that to mean fascist, and arguments will follow - rightly so. Greene is certainly not a fascist. This can be an issue on wikipedia. Even if you can find a dozen sources to say 2+2=5 if you put that, people will object. I actually think much of the rest isn't too bad, it probably gives undue weight to some off-hand comments years ago about conspiracy theories but that is debateable and I don't have a dog in this fight. However to call her far-right is simply a falsehood and as long as it remains you'll find people, whether or not they understand all the complex rules of wikipedia, will fight about it because it's untrue. That's actually a welcome thing, a strength of the wikipedia community - wikipedia should aspire to the truth, verified by sources, not an untruth that can find some sources. The same thing has played out on Ann Coulter's page and the false far-right description is now removed - though only after a solid year of endless and, in the end, pointless arguments - as likewise those same arguments will play out here too. "Far right" is not very right wing, or extremely conservative or hard right or anything like that, it's a specific thing in politics, it is fascism. Greene is not a fascist. Anything else is just sophistry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:986:EB00:4C7E:C706:4220:2F45 (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:WEIGHT of Reliable Sources is clear, Greene is definitely Far-right. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

CharlesShirley's removals

Does this Fox News article support the statements "Greene supports outlawing abortion" and "She opposes any form of mandatory mask-wearing, compulsory vaccination or lockdowns in response to the pandemic. She described mask-wearing "oppressive" on Twitter, prompting a response from Anthony Fauci who described Greene's stance as "disturbing"."? CharlesShirley removed these statements I added on the grounds that they are "clearly POV" and are "redundant, breathless descriptions". My view is that I am faithfully representing the content of the Fox News source. (Note: I had no intention to edit-war with CharlesShirley; for some reason VisualEditor failed to capture the edit conflict and simply overwrote their initial edits.) feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 17:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the first sentence to state: Greene opposes abortion. There is no need to add "outlawing abortion".CharlesShirley (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to add "outlawing abortion". Why not? Opposing abortion (i.e. "wants to see less abortion but not necessarily criminalize it") is clearly a starkly different position from wanting to outlaw abortion. And what about her statements on mask-wearing and vaccination, why do you think these should be removed? feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 18:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Wikipedia articles are written according to the WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT of Reliable Sources. In this case, the number of sources that use conspiracy theorist to describe her is quite strong. Shouting "political bias" doesn't mean much. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People who support conspiracy theories are called "conspiracy theorists." KidAd talk 01:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies is an essay you should read, and you should also be aware that WP:ABOUTSELF requires that a claim not be unduly self-serving, such as a perfunctory denial contradicted by the weight of WP:RS coverage. Greene is quite clearly a QAnon conspiracy theorist, per sources such as the New York Times. [2] IHateAccounts (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where are credible references backing up that she is a conspiracy theorist? Unless there are credible references (i.e. not liberal news media/fake news media) acclaiming that she is a conspiracy theorist, that smearing title should be removed as it's a political hack.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021

"far right" is not a great journalistic description. it is judgmental. are there politicians described as far-left? I didn't think so. "conservative" is a less normative description. 74.68.96.15 (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Far Right" is the consensus of Wikipedia:Reliable Sources news and informational coverage regarding Greene. Trying to whitewash the description is inappropriate. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IHateAccounts, self interview disavows her view as a conspiracy theorist, but @IHateAccounts insists on leaving on the page intro as a conspiracy theorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkowal43 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Bias

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

@Jkowal43: The page reflects the WP:WEIGHT of coverage in reliable sources. If you have specific wording you contest, please provide the specific changes you would like to see made along with WP:RS citations to support your proposed wording. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jkowal43, can you be more specific please. We need to know action items before we can evaluate your claim. Elizium23 (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congresswoman has dis-avowed any conspiracy theories in in-person interviews. When trying to cite these articles (Foxnews), edits get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkowal43 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies is an essay you should read, and you should also be aware that WP:ABOUTSELF requires that a claim not be unduly self-serving, such as a perfunctory denial contradicted by the weight of WP:RS coverage. Greene is quite clearly a QAnon conspiracy theorist, per sources such as the New York Times.[3] Fox News, even if the interview were not subject to the additional burden of WP:ABOUTSELF, is not considered reliable for citations regarding politics. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IHateAccounts, ABOUTSELF only applies to SPS, not to RS like Fox News. Elizium23 (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misrepresent Fox News' RSP status. It is yellow. It can be used with caution. There is nothing wrong with Jkowal43 citing a claim about herself in an interview. Fox News is reliable for that statement of fact. Is it on video? Elizium23 (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: WP:ABOUTSELF also applies to statements made by subjects in interviews, which are not fact-checked or put through an editorial standards process; any such claims made in interviews bear the burden of being checked to ensure they are neither unduly self-serving or WP:EXCEPTIONAL. And please review WP:RSP, Fox News is not "green" (or "considered generally reliable") in the realms of science or politics. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't proposing that the article says that Greene no longer believes conspiracy theories. We're proposing that it records that she denied believing in them. Fox News is reliable for this statement of fact, that Green made a statement. All we're doing is recording her statement, we're not making a truth judgement about the veracity. There is no issue whatsoever that would be covered by ABOUTSELF that would prevent our use of the fact that she made a statement to the public. Elizium23 (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth or on my keyboard. Did I say it's "green"? Nope. Elizium23 (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jkowal43, while I agree that a Fox News interview is reliable for her statements about herself, let's not blow them out of proportion. If other RS support the fact that she condoned conspiracy theories, then the "conspiracy theorist" moniker is accurate, and you have no right to remove it simply because she denied it once in public. We would need more substantive evidence than that. I suggest you build on things already in the article. It is WP:DUE that she has issued a denial, so that should be included in the article. But don't try to rework it to erase her past as supported by other RS. Elizium23 (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was deleted in the article, except that introduction was changed. Tried re-working the article to state that she previously adhered to these stances, but has since denied them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkowal43 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first problem for Jkowal43's claim is that while they try to cite two non-RS Fox News pieces from late August 2020, the coverage of Greene's status as a conspiracy theorist in WP:RS is solid much past that point; the New York Times article I linked is from November 2020. The second problem for Jkowal43's claim is that even if we do take her WP:MANDY denial of being a QAnon conspiracy theorist at face value (and it appears WP:RS don't so we shouldn't either), her status is not limited merely to QAnon; she also supports anti-semitic conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories about a mass shooting in Las Vegas, islamophobic conspiracy theories directed at her fellow congressional representatives, 9/11 conspiracy theories, and more. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved some bits out of the lede paragraph as WP:UNDUE for such a short lede. It's already quite prominent in the opening sentence. I hope that the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV satisfies you for the RS which is cited for her own statement about herself in a public interview. Elizium23 (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't need to accept her denial at "face value" and nobody is suggesting that we should. We simply report her statement with attribution and move on. It is neither right nor wrong. Elizium23 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alright, thanks to the vandalism there are now TWO problems going on.
  1. - listing her as a "QAnon Conspiracy Theorist" is improperly limiting as a qualifier. As pointed out above, and detailed in the "Support for conspiracy theories" section, QAnon is but one of many conspiracy theories she promotes.
  2. - The wording "In August 2020, Greene told Fox News that she no longer discusses conspiracy theories.[23]" - THIS IS REDUNDANT to the wording "When Greene stood for the House of Representatives in 2020, she distanced herself from the conspiracy theory and rejected the label of "QAnon candidate".[23]" which is already in the first paragraph.
I highly recommend that either @Jkowal43: revert themselves, or @Elizium23: revert these inappropriate edits that damage the article. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

"She has previosuly expressed"[4]
And I have not reverted any "improvements" you made to other pages, unless you have other accounts? I reverted [5] because it was already correctly represented by the CBS source and an invalid removal, though I am now adding a Yahoo News sourcing specifically to that as well just to be clear and provide a text source since the other was video. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Let's get back on topic. I still highly suggest you revert your inappropriate WP:3RR (5th revert) violation from yesterday. It did nothing but harm to the article. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IHateAccounts: I don't believe that Jkowal43 will be able to revert, because of the extended-confirmed protection that's been placed on the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: I wasn't aware of that, they were able to edit after the initial protection yesterday. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Jkowal43: Only one editor has made an edit[6], and they changed an order of wording which I am about to question them on in a new talk section shortly. You are in violation of WP:3RR and should revert the changes you made, manually if needed. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Order of information in lede

@Salix alba: regarding this edit [7], the WP:WEIGHT of coverage clearly indicates Greene being a conspiracy theorist first, and an elected official second, at least for the time being. Also you removed the category "American politician", can you please explain? IHateAccounts (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @IHateAccounts, please cite other examples of pages for other US Congressmen and Congresswomen where their role as a member of Congress does not come first. Thanks. --Jkowal43 (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Jkowal43[reply]
I'm afraid I need to agree with Jkowal43, if for no other reason than WP:IAR. True, she hasn't gotten a lot of news coverage for being a Congresswoman, but that's just because she just became one. It is, however, simply, inherently, a more notable role than conspiracy theorist. It's not close. Even if she is hit by a meteorite immediately before assuming the office, and never does one other thing as Congresswoman, I guarantee her obituaries will say "Congresswoman-elect" before they will say "conspiracy theorist". --GRuban (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My reason is because of WP:NPOV. It we start with the QAnon part, it makes the article look like it written from left-wing POV, immediately starting with the most damming characterization of her. Ideally, you should be able to read the article and not be able to guess the political leaning of the editors. Starting with the neutral basic information is a step towards that direction.--Salix alba (talk): 23:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heading Update in Political Positions

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

I changed the header to "COVID-19". To be about "health care", we'd need to add something on her position on Obamacare, at a minimum. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu, isn't COVID-19 about "Health care"? It is standard practice to add such a heading to politicians' BLPs, then we encourage people to add more information of her stance on health care. If we call it "COVID-19" then we're encouraging editors to create new sections. Elizium23 (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elizium23, fair point. Sadly, I can't seem to find any RS on her Obamacare stance. That didn't come up in the campaign once? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Election Result Section

Is there a template to add an Elections section with the 2020 results, and/or a suggestion as where to place in the article? Also can we cite Ballotpedia and use those results? [1] --Jkowal43 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Jkowal43[reply]

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

References

  1. ^ https://ballotpedia.org/Marjorie_Taylor_Greene

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

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

Moving Intro Information into Body

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

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

According to the NY Times, [1], there were 147 Republicans that objected to some aspect of the Electoral College election results. Greene voiced a single objection that wasn't sustained by a corresponding Senate response. I can't find a single instance that includes this as an intro in any of the other congressional member pages, even in other freshmen member pages with no political background. Recommend incorporating further in the article in a Congressional Voting or similarly appropriate section.--Jkowal43 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/electoral-college-biden-objectors.html

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

Order of Information in Conspiracy Theories Section

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation needed

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

Hi, we do have citations for those (they are not necessary in the lede, per WP:LEADCITE) and it is amply documented that this woman believes a panoply of conspiracy theories. Nobody has disputed that because of the documentary evidence. Elizium23 (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that when someone is so vocal and prolific about promoting these conspiracy theories, she gets so much press about it that it is a significant part of her notability. The lede sentence in a BLP describes why the subject is notable. She is notable for being a politician and she is notable for being a conspiracy theorist, so the moniker is appropriate and WP:DUE. Elizium23 (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2021

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

 Not done: this same edit request has been given multiple times and it’s been denied every time, we have reliable sources for the usage of the term “conspiracy theorist”. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 01:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Footnote [a] shows how several reliable sources describe Greene as an advocate or promoter of various conspiracy theories. TimSmit (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene&oldid=1000437809"