This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It 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 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 This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Conservatism 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Georgia (U.S. state) 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 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 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 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 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. U.S. Congress 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 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 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 United States: 50,000 Challenge 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 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 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 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. Naughtie, Andrew (May 27, 2022). "Marjorie Taylor Greene is spending more on security than any other candidate, filings show". The Independent. Retrieved May 29, 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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