This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Women in Red: #1day1woman (2020) This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles Biography: Politics and Government GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Conservatism GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Georgia (U.S. state) GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Crooked Creek (Georgia), Ed Defore Sports Complex, Audery Mill Creek, More (Georgia)... More (U.S.)... Assess : Rate articles from Unassessed Georgia (U.S. state) articles and Unknown-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles. Citing sources : Unreferenced Georgia (U.S. state) articles Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category. Geographical coordinates : more Georgia (U.S. state) articles missing geocoordinate data Infobox : Georgia (U.S. state) articles without infoboxes Map : Wikipedia requested maps in Georgia (U.S. state) Photo : Wikipedia requested photographs in Georgia (U.S. state) Stubs : Work on stubs in articles in Georgia (U.S. state) stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) radio station stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) road stubs and Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs. Other : *Deletion sorting: Please see the collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Georgia (U.S. state) - compiled by WikiProject Deletion sorting Help out with articles placed in Category:Georgia (U.S. state) articles needing attention Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Tag the talk pages of Georgia (U.S. state)-related articles with the {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)}} banner. Get Georgia (U.S. state) to a featured article quality standard Politics: American GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Skepticism GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. U.S. Congress GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Women GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. United States: 50,000 Challenge GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help! Women in Business GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Other talk page banners
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Rogers, Kaleigh (2021-03-03). "How Marjorie Taylor Greene Won, And Why Someone Like Her Can Win Again". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved 2021-03-08.

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

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)[reply]
  • Comment What is the meaning of "geocide"? Dimadick (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per Zaathras. Andre🚐 13:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  "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)[reply]

• Yes per TFD. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

• Yes. It accurately reflects the preponderance of reliable sourcing, and it's not a BLP violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes As with far-right conspiracy theorist, it is the basis for MTG's notoriety. ValarianB (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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:[3] "Mrs Greene's extremist conspiracy theories" [4] "candidate known for her support of extremist conspiracy theories" [5] "s while promoting extremist conspiracy theories." it's not controversial IMO. Andre🚐 13:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the ones we use in the lead to those. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • Hence why I have two other criteria listed as well. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

The hatchet job on Marjorie Taylor Green needs re-writing, preferably by someone not full of animus toward Miss Green. Political opinion needs to be taken out. Facts only please. Young waif (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Prompt]. Can you be more specific? Andre🚐 05:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way to solve this may be to fudge the issue by saying "On the one hand she has been described as an extremist [cite the sources] but on the other hand she has been been described as a reasonable serious and moderate politician [if you can find any sources then these must be cited] Personally as a slightly to the left of centre non US citizen I find all her political views as revealed on this page right wing and extremist and I challenge her supporters to come up with something that she believes in that no reasonable person could describe as extreme. Reasonable reliable sources must of course be cited.Mere abuse and calling red blue or vice versa or calling me a "commie bastard" will not suffice.Spinney Hill (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but first they need to find such sources. Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ExactlySpinney Hill (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how noteworthy this is, as it's a recent and developing situation, but should there be some mention about the swatting incident that just occurred, with Greene calling for sites like Kiwi Farms to be taken off-line?

CBS CNBC CNN Daily Dot NBC Newsweek

So far, I've seen her criticism of trolling sites like Kiwi Farms in video interviews only, nothing in print yet. Update: Greene's calls for Kiwi Farms to be shutdown is mentioned here and here. She and others on the right have referred to this as an act of "political terrorism" so I guess we can wait and see how serious she is about limiting free speech on the Internet, etc. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No for now, per WP:NOTNEWS. After some time we can revisit and see if had had any lasting coverage or impact. Zaathras (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks for your response! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I will continue to compile relevant articles here.

Swatted for a second time: Ars Technica CNBC CNN HuffPost NBC The Hill Insider Insider Rolling Stone

98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor incident, leave it out for now. Andre🚐 04:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's enough widespread coverage, and enough reasonable likelihood of continuing coverage, that a short mention is justified. I'm thinking something like "In August 2022, Greene was swatted twice at her home in Georgia, with police responding two nights in a row to hoax calls." I think it would fit well at the end of §Tenure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you. Wording seems fine. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Andre🚐 20:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that NOTNEWS applies. MTG receives a lot of media attention and we should only report stories that have some sort of lasting significance. Also, we have to be careful about the wording. Although a caller who identified their self as AltisticRight of Kiwi Farms claimed responsibility, neither they or any else did on the Kiwi Farms website. It will probably become noteworthy once the caller is identified. TFD (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who made the calls, it may be worth mentioning Kiwi Farms if MTG continues demanding to shutdown their site. We'll see what happens in the coming days & weeks. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change "charges of hypocrisy" to "a charge of hypocrisy". Change "allegations of marital infidelity" to "unsubstantiated allegations of marital infidelity".

The addition of the word "unsubstantiated" helps the reader understand that even although two sources for the allegation are cited, both sources refer to the same accuser (Jim Chambers) who offered no proof other than his unsubstantiated statement that Ms. Greene engaged in multiple extramarital affairs.

The singular form for "charge" should be used because the citations are for the same, single accusation of marital infidelity. 76.174.18.68 (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thewsomeguy (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the sentence about "unsubstantiated allegations of marital infidelity" per WP:BLPGOSSIP. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit. Andre🚐 04:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you even include a single unsubstantiated accusations of infidelity that had 0 proof . That'soo messed up and so massively dishonest , you're just making it up as you go . 157.211.12.205 (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to flag the following: Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's Official Member portrait has changed and should be updated to the new image provided to the Library of Congress. Her wikipedia page is Marjorie Taylor Greene. Thank you! Aernsthouse (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed before. That portrait is not in the Library of Congress, it's all rights reserved by the GOP and image was provided by the Member. It's not an official portrait. Andre🚐 21:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All rights reserved by the GOP is simply untrue, but would love to see anything you have that backs up this claim. With all due respect, Congress does not have an elementary school style picture day where they all line up for their picture to be taken.

Each Member's official portrait is taken and retaken at the Member's sole discretion and released accordingly. The image was provided to the Library of Congress as a courtesy by the Member's office. This new official portrait is also used on all verified social media channels that represent the Congresswoman in her OFFICIAL capacity, such as Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and others. The image on her page should be updated along with a corrected caption that reads Official Portrait, 2022. Wikipedia remains ones of the only places that uses her outdated Member portrait. Aernsthouse (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed here: Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene/Archive_3#Proposed_profile_photo_change [6] per @C.Fred, it was "was created by the Republican Party and is under all-rights-reserved license." Someone tried to upload that portrait to Commons and it's being considered for deletion: [7] Andre🚐 02:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the status of the image is, it really isn't relevant. We decide what image to use in an infobox, the Wikipedia is not an arm of Greene's public relations outfit. Zaathras (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With Katia you are the most bias information outlet on the Webb. You should be sued for political attack. You are left-wing activist and you should have a disclaimer saying such. How unprofessional and part of the liberal cult you are! 172.243.89.92 (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]