Indeed a change for change's sake, but I would not be opposed, either. Also, full name or not at all, please. I'm not your blind date. ValarianB (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Will do, ValarianB. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you fixate on the tiniest of battles, tbh. ValarianB (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
This is not a battle. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
We should distinguish between Republicans who support Trump because he is leader of the party, and those who have a strong personal allegiance to him. The vast majority of Republican politicians belong to one of these two groups. TFD (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Only if we have verifiable reliable sources that do so. Andrevan@ 14:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you want to replace "strong" with "personal"? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Andrevan, you claim to be extremely familiar with the sources on MTG. What do they say about her support for Trump?
I don't see how replacing strong with personal improves the wording.
I'd be fairly confident that there's sourcing for the "strong" support of Trump, TFD, tho I will not claim to be a MTG expert or a MTG whisperer, and it seems very minor to call it "strong," "staunch," "personal," or not qualify her support at all as far as the impact to the article text, weight, meaning, narrative, etc. I am fine with "strong," but also don't really mind leaving it out. Andrevan@ 16:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I also don't see how it could. I was mainly wondering how we should distinguish between Republicans who support Trump because he is leader of the party and those who have a strong personal allegiance to him. Might it involve changing "strong" to any word? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you're doing a bit of heavy lifting there. We know that Greene is part of the faction of the party which is highly aligned with Trump. Why don't you look for a source that describes Greene's politics and how she might differ from say, Liz Cheney. Like these for example, if you don't like these, that's fine, I'm just spitballing: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]Andrevan@ 17:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
So, since you found a source in her own words that she is a strong supporter, and I'm sure you could find a few sources that describe her as such in the 3rd person... what exactly is the objection to her being a strong supporter of Trump? I think we all believe she is, right? Andrevan@ 17:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
What was the point of your list of links? Not asking impolitely, but the only one that calls her any kind of supporter calls her "one of the most outspoken". One calls two other guys "staunch". IsNewsweek generally reliable? I've read it depends and that WP:MANDY applies to some subjects' assertions and not others. My objection is still that "strong" suggests what Merriam-Webster says it means. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Don't know re: Newsweek, I thought it was, but maybe I have missed a memo somewhere. As far as my list, I was offering sources that show the conflict between different factions of Republicans. I didn't argue to include "strong," I think I stated I didn't really care if it's "strong" or not. "One of the most outspoken" seems synonymous enough with "strong," I think you seem to get hung up on definitions and exact wording a lot. Language depends on the meaning and the context. Regardless, my point was that there is indeed a factional divide in the Republican Party, one that we could explore in this article. If that concept is a little too complex to unpack right now, forget about it. It's not worth it. I think it's obvious to the reader that MTG is a strong supporter of Trump even if we don't write that. Andrevan@ 18:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I believe in meaningful English. "Strong" can mean "ardent" or "zealous", as in "a strong supporter" (by definition ten), but not "outspoken". In this context, I feel it might run contrary to MOS:PUFFERY. In my mind, this was one tiny seven-byte edit till it was reverted and turned into a "battle". I still don't care about it nearly as much as this verbosity might suggest, I promise you. And yeah, Newsweek changed, man. It's "all good". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I think an ardent or zealous supporter, would generally probably also be outspoken. That's how we know they are such a strong supporter. It is technically possible for a strong supporter to be quiet, I guess. It's also technically possible for a weak or wishy washy supporter to be very vocal about their wishy washiness. Usually though in politics, when you're a strong or ardent supporter of something, you are generally also very outspoken about your views on that subject. That is, after all, the job. I think you could similarly say that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a strong/ardent and vocal/outspoken supporter of democratic socialism. I don't think it's PUFFERY at all to describe someone on the strength of their political support for something, so long as you can substantiate it. As far as this "battle," a couple of peoplesomeone haves reverted you when you tried to remove "strong," so maybe it's not so much a battle as it is a quest that isn't bearing much fruit here. Best let it lie. Andrevan@ 18:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
You may be right about most of that. But I wasn't reverted by a couple of people, just ValarianB. And we bore an agreement that "staunch" could work (that's fruit enough for me). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I will support "staunch," "strong," "ardent," "whizz-bang," "the full McCoy," and "truly the real deal." She is "dyed-in-the-wool." Andrevan@ 19:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
"Ardent" is growing on me. Same seven bytes as "staunch", but sounds less staunchy. Staunch. That's the sound of a stubborn mule sitting in the mud like a jackass, refusing to bend! Ardent is like some slick argent garden, where a daffy blonde miller's daughter sneaks in to sip nectar and write fan letters to her dotardly blonde Prince Charming up there in the marvelous sparkling tower. That's all it really ever was between them, y'know? Admiration, devotion, the realm...illusions! You know who was staunch? The team that made him the president, through hell and high water. Who was the strongest supporter of them all? The one talking to his glitzy star-studded mirror. He knew he could do it, even when the mics were off. Trump literally ate, slept and breathed Trump from deepest darkest fantasy, past the witch and into America's children's collective waking nightmare. That takes strength. Ardency just takes a certain low cunning. Don't even get me started on what a fervid supporter takes to come down (it ain't pretty!). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
"ardent" is actually 1 letter shorter than "staunch" even thought it's 2 syllables. "Fervid" or "fervent" definitely has a bit of a connotation, probably religious. I laughed though. Andrevan@ 00:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
By George, yerrite! Bit of a confusing "diphthong" there, as the singers say. So yeah, that settles it. Concise and precise, if anything at all. Fervent makes me picture an emotionally frail teenager farting in wolf's clothing (not that there's anything wrong with that, they'll just never be president). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Extended discussion
The articles you showed about division in the Republican Party were between the majority of which MTG is part and a handful of Republicans who will support the Dems on some issues. But Trumpism isn't about policy, it's about personal loyalty to the leader. That's part of what makes it unusual in modern U.S. politics. TFD (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
No comment on the veracity of your statement. If you have alternative sources to tell a different story, I'd be happy to read. Let's not get into armchair historiography unless we have sources. Andrevan@ 19:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Alternative to what? Different from what? And why won't you comment on the veracity of my reading of the sources you provided? I would expect that if you presented a source you would have some idea what it meant. TFD (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstood. Can you quote where it says that Trumpism is not about policy? I don't see that. I'll concede the part that Cheney and Kinzinger side with Dems on the Jan 6 issue, if that's what you are asking, or the 19 Rs that voted for the infra bill.That seems like both a policy issue and a political issue. I don't see how it related to personal loyalty. I'll also concede that Trump and MTG are in the majority of the R party right now from my read. Andrevan@ 21:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I wrote, "The articles you showed about division in the Republican Party were between the majority of which MTG is part and a handful of Republicans who will support the Dems on some issues." Do you agree or disagree with that statement or is that armchair historiography (sic)?
Furthermore, it's a bit much to claim that Trumpism is a set of policies then ask me for a source when I disagree. Where's your source? TFD (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, as I just said, I agree that the salient division in the GOP right now, or at least the one I linked to in the links, is between Trump and his followers, which include Greene, and Cheney/Kinzinger, whatever other "NeverTrump" or "moderate" Republicans are called or are calling themselves. As to whether Trumpism has a policy platform, I'd say it does, but that doesn't seem relevant to this discussion. Regardless, you didn't cite a source that "Trumpism isn't about policy, it's about personal loyalty to the leader. That's part of what makes it unusual in modern U.S. politics." which is what I'm calling amateur historiography. Citation needed on that point. Andrevan@ 22:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Your first source is about a division in Republicans over support of the Nov 5 infrastructure bill. It's unsupported to say that the group supporting the bill were never Trumper/moderate Republicans. Liz Cheney for example voted against it. Large numbers of the supporters were pro-Trump. You also fail to distinguish between Republicans who support Trump because he is the leader and his strongest supporters. TFD (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
You know what, I think we're getting a little off track here. Can we narrow down what exactly we are talking about here? This is the talk:MTG and not Talk:GOP MAGA vs non-MAGA. You're right, I don't have a particular source that says the Republicans who voted for the infrastructure bill were all moderates or NeverTrumpers. In fact our article Never_Trump_movement#Republicans_who_left_the_party_in_opposition_to_the_Trump_administration doesn't seem to include any Congresspeople, just pundits. Nor do I have a source that specifically says that Liz Cheney is a NeverTrumper in the list I just posted, though Rand Paul called her that[10], but I'm not advocating we need to add that to article text. Logically though it stands to reason that Liz Cheney could both be a member of the "non-MAGA" faction and have not voted for the infrastructure bill, while it's possible that every Republican that did vote for it is also a non-MAGA. I haven't gone down the list to check but I'm also not claiming we need to talk about that in THIS article. I am merely trying to shed some light on the background here. The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that there's an "ultra-MAGA" (to borrow the term that Biden has used, but not advocating for this in article text) Trump-faction, containing at least Greene, Boebert, Stefanik, Cawthorn, and a non-Trump faction, which contains at least Cheney and Kinzinger, at least, whatever name you want to call them. And I'm not making any claims I can source the relative size or power of those factions or who is or isn't in each one. Do we have a current dispute or question or are we done here? What is your source for the fact that Greene is not a true Trump supporter? Every source I'm offering on this talk page has information about Marjorie Taylor Greene and her relations with the rest of her caucus, her allies, and her enemies (like Cheney). More: "Trump ally defeats bid to block her re-election" [11] "Trump endorses ‘warrior’ Marjorie Taylor Greene, other House GOP 2020 objectors" [12] "'They hate me': Marjorie Taylor Greene defends her place on Georgia ballot at Trump rally" [13] She's performing at his rally, they're cross-endorsing each other. She texted Mark Meadows about "Marshall Law" [sic][14]Andrevan@ 23:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Your link is to another Wikipedia article which is not a reliable source for what goes into this or any other article.
Indeed there are ultra-MAGA and never-Trump members of the party. The majority however are party loyalists who would support a yellow dog if he or she were their candidate. This article should be clear that MTG is ultra-MAGA, however we chose to phrase that.
I agree. We should be clear that MTG is one of the most prominent Trumpists and prominent ultra-MAGA politicians. I am also flexible on the phrasing. And I was not offering that other article as a source, but it HAS sources. Andrevan@ 02:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Conspiracy theorist in lede
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.
I'm responding to a posting at WP:CR, and although there's still a few more days on the 30 day timer, I think consensus here is clear enough, and responses from new parties have dried up. If there are any objections, feel free to revert. I think I'm in a good position to close this, as many of those involved know my distaste for using labels like conspiracy theorist in opening sentences, and despite that this is an obvious consensus to include. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Is the title "conspiracy theorist" in the lede WP:DUE?
Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Survey
Yep. From Jewish space lasers to Pizzagate to the beliefs on globalist/Democratic pedophile sex slave rings to not believing a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Just about every tinfoil conspiracy out there in the last 2 decades, you can find this woman slurping it up and regurgitating to her followers. Zaathras (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
No I would prefer the phrasing "expresses many conspiracy theories" for people who do so and "conspiracy theorist" for someone whose notability derives from conspiracism, such as David Icke and Alex Jones. We should take the example of news sources that almost never refer to her as a conspiracy theorist in articles about her in the news. In this case, we should write with an impartial tone. TFD (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes the "political zines" that are cited in this article are all reliable sources, and they explicitly name her as a conspiracy theorist. If you hover over the cite bundle, many of the sources are from before she was even elected, meaning her notability was initially derived from the wide coverage of her conspiracy theories. I disdain the use of politically-charged identifiers in the first sentence of an article (I have organized the adjustment of political identifiers, particularly "far-right", in numerous articles, including even in articles like Roy Moore), but in this case, it is an integral part of her persona and thus is valid for use as a key identifier. This is written quite clearly in as impartial a tone you can get with such a subject, but impartiality is a two-way road: not including something that has been so widely covered is just as impartial as including something that is minimally covered; with regards to WP:DUE, there are times where you just have to call a spade a spade. Curbon7 (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Either, and before you criticize me for not deciding I'll say I spent 15 minutes thinking about this so I'm going to say something, dangit! It seems kind of silly to call it out in the first sentence when the very next paragraph dives into the crazy stuff, but she's in a weird job (politics, fundraising) where her brand identity (that is, right wing conspiracies, and her supporters would agree) is her career almost as much as "lawmaker". It's interesting to compare Alex Jones because he's claimed he has a mask, which raises the question, is it a mask to become Batman or Bruce Wayne? (or Clark Kent, in which case it's a terrible mask because it's f'ing obviously Superman). Greene hasn't given any public indication of a double life, however. Also, "conspiracy theorist" is also not always seen as derogatory to the alt-right in my observation – they'll just ask you to note that many conspiracy theories turn out to be true! SamuelRiv (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
No Prefer wording proposed by the The Four Deuces. ~ HAL333 03:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
So, The Four Deuces believes that "conspiracy theorist" should be reserved "for someone whose notability derives from conspiracism". Since you vote is per his entry, could you (and/or he) entertain us with what MTG's notoriety is derived from, if not conspiracism? Zaathras (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Notoriety is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, notability is. MTG's notability is derived from her occupation as a politician. Initially she met the criterion of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage," which is when the article was created as a stub. Later she became a member of Congress, which guarantees notability. If she had not run for Congress, you probably would never have heard of her. TFD (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
This article existed before she was elected, so, MTG's notability is derived from her occupation as a politician is incorrect. She was notable as the first Q-endorsing candidate. Can you point to a single instance of actual Congressional action that has garnered coverage for Rep. Greene? No? Her sponsored legislation is all political theatrics ("Fire Fauci Act", expulsion of Maxine Waters, impeachment of Joe Biden, not genuine governance. Every waking moment of this person's existence, and the reliable sources that cover it, is spent on the promotion of conspiracy theories. Zaathras (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
In fact this article was created when MTG entered the primary. IOW notability was established by WP:NPOL. She had no notability before she entered the race. And her political positions could also be described as conservative, racist, pro-gun, or Islamophobic, so why aren't you suggesting we say MTG is "a conservative, racist, two amendment activist, Islamobphobe and conspiracy theorist?" What additional information does it convey to readers to say she is a conspiracy theorist rather than someone who promotes conspiracy theories? This is an encyclopedia, not a Democratic blog, and should be written in a neutral tone. Bear in mind that if we keep a neutral tone, the article becomes more persuasive. Coming off as obviously biased against MTG, whether it is justified or not, makes readers question the article's fairness. Hence, you are detracting from the description you want to present. Incidentally, do you think that disliking Maxime Waters or Joe Biden or supporting gun rights makes someone a conspiracy theorist? TFD (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
The first part is simplistic Whataboutism, and not worth addressing further. To the second, Greene's beliefs in regards to Maxine Waters and Joe Biden are drenched in conspiracy theories, not mere "dislike". The effort to expel Waters is rooted in beliefs that pro-Floyd protests incite violence, and for Biden, the articles of impeachment were based on the debunked conspiracies regarding his son Hunter and the Ukraine. Zaathras (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
You said the article was created before MTG became a politician and I showed your claim was false. I see more than a bit of irony that you are using a false claim to support calling someone else a conspiracy theorist. There's an old saying that should guide us, "Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It." IOW don't write about MTG in the tone she would use to write about other people. It brings us down to her level. TFD (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
No, I said "This article existed before she was elected". Nice try. Zaathras (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I dont see how the date of article creation is salient to this discussion, except maybe tangentially to discuss the history. Harvey Weinstein was well known as a producer that made many famous movies (aka his movies were more famous than him), but his article today is a whole different situation and the focus is mostly is about his personal behavior (his notoriety today probably overshadows many of the movies he made). I point to this as a clear example of how a BLP changes over time as the source of notability of the article subject changes over time. As another point, once someone gets involved in US national politics, then the notability of that in many cases will overshadow their earlier notability (what you are referring to at the time of the article creation). Donald Trump is an example here, he was a somewhat notable rich guy with big hair and a TV show, after he got elected however he became a global figure. In summary, things change, and at wikipedia we follow the news, and nothing is ever set in stone. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Agree with you that it is tangential for the same reasons and will add that had Greene lost the election, this article would probably have been deleted by now.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes. It's one of her most notable traits and is backed by myriad RS. It's so bad that among politicians she's the Alex Jones of political conspiracy theorists. Not many come close. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes She was one before being elected, and she remains one. It is in fact (apart from being an elected representative) her most notable feature (and arguably it is equal to her position, she would get far less coverage without the conspiracy BS). In fact (arguably) she would still be notable if she had lost, based upon this. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes. As others have mentioned, she is slightly more notable as a conspiracy theorist than a representative. And, like modifiers such as 'American' or 'politician', her current occupation is listed lastly. It would be wonky to put 'conspiracy theorist' after 'state representative'. SWinxy (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
The word I am looking for here is 'adjective'. Calling her a politician is first. Her actual elected position is last. SWinxy (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes As noted above above it's her notable trait as referenced in multiple RS. As a result, she has global notability/notoriety. She's only a first term congresswoman. The reason she has notability across the world is because of her crackpot theories. I'm in the UK and I would be hard pressed to name any other members of the US House of Representatives (Pelosi, McCarthy maybe?). But I can name her and she is known not because she is a member of congress - she's only been in Congress 2 years - or any other aspect of her political career but only because of bizarre tin foil hat views. DeCausa (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
This has been the longest two years ever. LOL Missvain (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes - I cannot think of anything she's known for better aside from getting elected to office, threatening people, getting banned from Twitter, and liking Donald Trump. She's a conspiracy theorist. Think about all the other hundreds of congresspeople - this one stands out for one primary reason and did so even when she was running for office because she was into QAnon. Keep it in the lede. Missvain (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
No Wikipedia should not use bias terms. It is not a site for opinion, but rather it is a site for facts. Anyone can easily be labeled a conspiracy theorist, but as she does not identify as a conspiracy theorist herself, it should be left out of the article. More over, it is not a title, but instead a slur. 26 June 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B028:2875:10E8:7884:F04A:AA51 (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC) — 2600:1014:B028:2875:10E8:7884:F04A:AA51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2600:1014:B028:2875:10E8:7884:F04A:AA51 (UTC).
Hi! One of Wikipedia's core policies is that reliably secondary sources make up the content here. Living persons are given some amount of control over their page, be it with some self-published material, or with requests for changes. But when reliable, secondary sources publish these descriptions, especially when words are contested over, exist in numerous enough quantities, it becomes unavoidable to not describe someone as such. Many figures and organizations that have descriptions that are contested must have those reliable secondary sources to establish that yes this is how it should be described. Not describing oneself as something doesn't mean you aren't that something. SWinxy (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
No, her noterietay is not from believing in and/or discussing a conspiracy theory. This page was not published until she launched her campaign to be a representative. Because of this I do not believe this title should be used in the lede and not in the first sentence either. Grahaml35 (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
This is not a supportable assertion. When a previously-unknown person runs for a the House or Senate, the general procedure is to create a redirect of the person's name to the seat they are running for, and they are by Wikipedia standards, non-notable. The redirect appears to have been deleted to make way for a new article on 6-10-2020, i.e. 5 months before the election. Literally from the very first edit, Ms. Greene was already making waves for having a violent campaign ad taken down by Facebook. Within 7 days, the article already contained info on Greene's conspiracy-laden QAnon support, as well as antisemitism and Islamophobia. Seven days in. Zaathras (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
You are asserting a "general procedure", can you please provide examples. I think we are not talking about someone running for congress, we are talking about sitting congresswoman, no? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I am responding to and debunking the assertion that MTG's notability derived from simply being a candidate for and later a holder of a federal office. It is not usual practice to create an article for a new candidate who has not even won a primary yet, so to pass WP:N, there must be other circumstances that make the subject notable. Those "other circumstances" were present in the literal first iteration of this article, and the full coverage of her conspiracy theory nature was present in the article not a week later. MTG's notability, as the Wikipedia defines it, rests squarely on her being a prominent conspiracy theorist, not on being a mere congresswoman. Zaathras (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
OK, just to confirm your "general procedure" argument/opinion that lacks any factual backing and/or evidence, is that correct? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
You do not seem to be understanding anything I have said, given your lack of response to any salient point, so, there really is no further point to this tangent. Zaathras (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes. There is overwhelming objective evidence that the subject has received significant lasting attention from independent sources that supports the label of "conspiracy theorist". ––FormalDudetalk 06:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes - Her notability was established as such even before she became a sworn-in politician. It is the primary thing she is known for on a wider basis, and is reliably sourced. It completely overshadows her legislative status... she's the conspiracy theorist who got elected, not an elected official who happens to espouse conspiracy theories. It's central to her notability, and so should be in the first sentence. Fieari (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
No, and definitely not within the first sentence of the lede. Its far too soon (under RECENTISM) to be using these terms in subjective voice and that early in the lede, they are not objective descriptions of who she is in that first sentence. They are terms that may be appropriate later in the lede, but there should be a build-up of why those terms apply rather than just presenting them, otherwise this makes the tone of this article look like an attack article and fails on tone and impartiality. (The fact you have to stuff that many citations next to the phrase shows why it is a problem there). TFD is on the right path here. --Masem (t) 12:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I am confused by the claim that this is recentism. She was a conspiracy theorist before she was a politician, that's effectively what she ran on. ― Tartan357Talk 02:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Include, came here from Jimbo Wales' talkpage. MTG is a politician in name only, she serves on no committees (stripped), has proposed no impactful legislation, and doesn't even seem to ever hold townhall-like meets with constituents. 100% of her noteworthyness stems from being a conspiracy theorist, and the label "the QAnon supporter has been applies to her from the very beginning. See Marjorie Taylor Greene, a QAnon Supporter, Wins House Primary in Georgia from August 2020. ValarianB (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Responding to "politician in name only": her jail report was outstanding. She has a large list of proposed and co-sponsored legislation. She has proposed legislation that others have co-sponsored, including but not limited to, the Fire Fauci Act, Protect America First Act, Brian A. Terry Memorial Eliminate the ATF Act, To award three Congressional Gold Medals..., and No Funding for Terrorists Act--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank-you for reinforcing the point that she is not an actual politician. None of those are genuine legislation, virtually all political theater that died in committee. If Congress has a version of Wikipedia's WP:POINT, MTG would be clapped in irons. ValarianB (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I would be surprised if, years from now, at least one of her proposed bills was not enacted in some way, shape or form. Successful bills often hang around for years. They may eventually get combined with something else, maybe in reworded form. Even if she is not reelected, her bills' co-sponsors might be. If she is re-elected, and her party has a majority, she has reportedly been promised great committee assignments. And her financial position looks strong. The article should reflect that she is an actual politician.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The crystal ball-gazing about what-ifs is not relevant here. As for the article reflecting that she is an actual politician, it already does that. Do note that "conspiracy theorist" is 3rd in order of importance in the first line, after "politician" and "businesswoman", even though that one is largely fictitious. Zaathras (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Don't need a crystal ball to know that bills usually take a long time, and that cosponsors help move things along. I will move it after "Republican Party" and see if anyone reverts me.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
When a bill dies in committee, that is that. It doesn't stay around like Pinocchio, waiting and hoping someday to be a real boy. In this imagined future when Rep. Greene is restored to committees and such, she is free to reintroduce new bills with the same goals, but they be just that - new. Zaathras (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Not in conjunction with the current second paragraph. The current version[15] has the entire second paragraph about Greene supporting conspiracy theories. I agree that per WP:RS, discussion of this is warranted. However, the combination of that and adding it also to the first paragraph becomes WP:UNDUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
No, even though, in my view, she is a conspiracy theorist. Update: I'm not so sure anymore since my third point was off. Here's why we should follow TFD's suggestion:
WP:Neutral: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
WP:IMPARTIAL: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
WP:CONTENTIOUS: Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.Fewer than half of the list of reliable sources given in the discussion below directly call her a conspiracy theorist. (Titles don't count.) They are more oblique, like TFD suggests, saying she believes or promotes them. (Maybe other terminology, too--the notes I took when I looked through them all yesterday are inadequate, and I've used up my free articles on some.)YoPienso (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it has substantial coverage in secondary sources to the point where it's plainly a major aspect of her notability, and more than sufficient to satisfy any questions about due weight or BLP. Reflecting the sources is neutral writing; trying to write around it because the article's subject (or people who agree with her) might object is WP:FALSEBALANCE and is contrary to BLP's instructions for handling sensitive but well-cited material. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
No, she does not formulate the conspiracies, and where they've come up, they are a sideshow that some in the news media chase after. Greene is not primarily thought of as a conspiracy theorist, she is primarily labeled as such by media sympathetic to her opponents. By now, she is considered notable for things she got done and participated in and for her political positions, not for the conspiracy related topics some of the news media has focused on. That said, most readers probably expect wikipedia to slant in a manner similar to John Stossel's article on the topic, so it may not hurt her reputation if this comes out as a "yes" decision. --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
That is not a valid or relevant observation. Conspiracy theorists derive their notoriety from the spreading of conspiracy theories, them not being the originator is irrelevant. ValarianB (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
(Summoned by bot) Yes. I'm sensitive to concerns about unduly charged terminology and mildly sympathetic to the argument that she is not an originator of conspiracy theories, but I am ultimately persuaded by the definition of 'conspiracy theorist' in Merriam-Webster: "a person who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory". Creation of conspiracies a là Alex Jones, David Icke, etc. is not necessary per the RS's noted here and the dictionary definition of the term to be labeled a conspiracy theorist. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 19:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Include. No policy or guideline or wikilawyering can overrule the fundamental principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, and we are beholden to report what those sources say. Gamaliel (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Include It's all she was when she ran and got elected, and sources regularly introduce her that way. ― Tartan357Talk 02:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Include Major part of her "brand" as a public person, well established use of terminology in RSs and a crucial aspect of her notability. The fact that she was considered notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page BEFORE she became a politician pretty much settles it for me. Being elected doesn't automatically stop you from being a conspiracy theorist, why would it? PraiseVivec (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment I believe that if the RfC comes out as a "Yes" or "Include", that does not have any bearing for or against this edit being implemented.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
This RfC is essentially a referendum on the status quo. Once it concludes, you or anyone else would of course be free to initiate a discussion on placement and wording within the lede. Zaathras (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I disagree-- I think it is asking about inclusion of the phrase "conspiracy theorist" in the lead as an descriptor pertaining to Greene. I don't think it is intended to lock in the exact placement of the phrase. After the RfC is done, anyone could make relatively minor changes to the phrase's placement (like what I did), even without prior discussion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
You are free to try, but absent support here, you'd likely be reverted. ValarianB (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, there is significant reliable source coverage that states this, coverage I would charitably describe as "overwhelming". —Locke Cole • t • c 03:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment Wrong question. The first and second paragraphs together are overkill. They actually make the reader think more about the motivations of the people who wrote the article than about the person the article is about. It makes the (fully deserved) criticism of Greene as a conspiracy theorist weaker, not stronger. (In this respect, I agree with Adoring nanny above.) --AndreasJN466 10:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment: The wording as it currently exists in the first and second paragraphs is repetitive. Greene's primary source of notability is as an elected Republican politician in the USA; if she was saying all of this stuff in the blogs as an ordinary American, nobody would care. It is within WP:LEAD guidelines to point out that she has supported a wide range of theories that are frankly off the wall, and the second paragraph makes this clear. However, I'm not so convinced about saying "she is a conspiracy theorist" in the opening sentence.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 20:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The notion that nobody would care if she was just a blogger is a running misconception that seems to reflect one of the many problems with this article. If you read any of the FAQ sources (which I cleaned recently, so it's only quality now), you'll know that she rocketed from nothing to national-level politics faster than most believed possible precisely because she was a conspiracy blogger (to be fair, a "blogger" today implies combined-arms social media blitz warfare and not just weekly BS posts.) You don't just wake up one day and win a seat in Congress (as much as it may seem like that's how it is.) SamuelRiv (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
More or less, but in the current first sentence she's a politicians who's also a far-right conspiracy theorist. Seems more accurate to say she's a "far-right politician known for promoting conspiracy theories." The purpose of my rewording isn't to replace "conspiracy theorist" with "known for promoting conspiracy theories" (I think there's a case for either way, based on the sourcing), but that "far-right" should be modifying politician and not conspiracy theorist. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Done. Good point. I have moved "far-right" so it modifies "politician", but have not changed the part about "conspiracy theorist" as it's still under discussion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Contested. We should never preface the word "politician" with a political-leaning in the first sentence of the lede. I mean heck, we don't even do that with Hitler. I get the point that is trying to be made; so that I'm not interpreted as a stonewaller, I can agree that there may be a better way to fit to the lede in that she is far-right, probably by adjusting the 2nd sentence and pushing it in there. Curbon7 (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes - Greene has been described a conspiracy theorist in numerous reliable sources and her promotion of conspiracy theories are highly significant to her notability. This is one of those cases a contentious label is warranted. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes per the plethora of reliable sources using or supporting the label. It's one of the things she's mainly known for. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes I'm not a big fan of using epithets like this, but in this particular case - per overwhelming reliable sources - it's not only something that she is, but one of the things that she's best known for. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes - It is her only claim to fame and we may use our wikipedia voice to say so. Sectionworker (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, a defining characterization in reliable sourcing. Andrevan@ 05:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but would also like to put my support behind the proposal put forward by Rhododendrites for wording this claim. Defining characteristic for the subject and properly backed up by reliable sources. ser!(chat to me - see my edits) 15:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Neutral - I don't like pinning such descriptions in BLPs & yet, Greene does keep mentioning it. If we're are going to put it in? I hope 'both' Republican & Democratic lawmakers' bios, are likewise being treated the same. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I mean, if reliable sources support it, then yes, a member of any party should be described in the same manner. The Democratic Party has generally weeded out their MTG equivalents over the years though, so I'm not sure if there is a current contemporary. Cynthia McKinney said some crazy stuff back in the day, and gets some coverage of it in her 3rd paragraph. Lyndon LaRouche is described as engaging in "conspiratorial beliefs and violent and/or illegal activities". Zaathras (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Democrats hollered (and still due) conspiracy in 2016. Republicans hollered (and still do) conspiracy in 2020. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Democrats hollered (and still due[sic]) conspiracy, if you can provide source coverage of a member of the Democratic Party who was consistently and reliably called a conspiracy theorist in 2016, I'll add it to their article myself. Zaathras (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
You are moving the goalposts, since MTG is not "consistently and reliably called a conspiracy theorist." However, I guess you missed Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 40#Conspiracy theorist category from 2016, where some editors argued that because some reliable sources said she had supported conspiracy theories, she should be labeled a conspiracy theorist. Notice, I voted against the recommendation because I believe that policy should be followed regardless of the political orientation of the subject.
Yes this should be included. Whenever an article spends a few thousand words on something, that something should be named in the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes The lede is quite accurate for this vile woman. scope_creepTalk 09:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes Her (and her supporters) may wish for the Wikipedia article about her to be described as a congresswoman or business owner, but it's like the guy with a terrible idea for a mobile app wanting to be known as an "entrepreneur" when they're just a charlatan. :) It's up to what RS report (including prevalence) and our policies to summarize what she is known for. Ckoerner (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
There exists this Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene/FAQ that lists the sources. The term is also cite-bundled with a number of sources. The question is really is it WP:DUE to use this title in the lede, and if it should be in the first sentence, even before her title as a congresswoman? Will we use this title for every BLP that contains a dozen or so sources from political-zines? First time I have seen this sort of thing on an apparent member of congress. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Probably because this is the first time a member of congress has been primarily thought of as a conspiracy theorist. Hopefully, she’s a rarity. DeCausa (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Here we can see according to Conspiracy_theory#Etymology_and_usage that the the usage is "always derogatory". However, WP:BLPSTYLE says "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language". Thus yes, I agree it would be great if we didn't use that for elected officials no matter how undesirable they are. Probably this could extend towards all BLPs in general. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
You inadvertently omitted the end of that sentence from BLPSTYLE:”… unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources” Bingo! DeCausa (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about that. It says "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Please note: We aren't discussing whether to say Greene promotes conspiracy theories or not; we're discussing only how to say that. The second paragraph of the lead removes all possibilities of creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Even this highly critical piece from CNN doesn't label her a conspiracy theorist. YoPienso (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Exactly, we are discussing how and the subject of this RFC is the first sentence in the lede, not the second paragraph. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm talking about the lede. The question is whether we label Green as a conspiracy theorist, or if we say she promotes conspiracy theories. I was clarifying since some editors seemed not to understand. YoPienso (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, while I dont support the use of the term as a whole, that was not the scope of this RFC. For this RFC I was only referring to the lede, and mostly the fact that the term was listed before her job as a congresswoman. Seemed a bit over the top. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
From the comments so far, most responders perceive the RfC as a "yes" or "no about the label. So far it looks like it will be a "yes". There might end up being another discussion or even RfC after this one for where the label in the first paragraph goes, and also another about the second paragraph. Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
@DeCausa:: In fact, you know Greene's a conspiracy theorist only because she's in Congress. Before she ran for office, even though she was already a conspiracy theorist, she wasn't widely known. YoPienso (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
@Yopienso: actually, I knew of her from when she ran for Congress. (Probably, from my perspective in the UK, the only congressional candidate I've ever been aware of.) But that's not the point. The question is whether it's WP:DUE to describe her as a conspiracy theorist who serves in Congress. And it is: per the WP:RS she's the conspiracy theorist who managed to get elected, not the elected person who, by the way, is a conspiracy theorist. DeCausa (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Your argument to call her a conspiracy theorist doesn't hold up. You wrote, "But I can name her and she is known not because she is a member of congress . . " And yet you never heard of her before she ran for Congress. It was the running for Congress and getting elected that put her in the public eye. YoPienso (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Neither argument here is sound, because biographical descriptors in this case are not used to describe what someone is notable for, they are used for what someone is. To use Bob Menendez as an example, Robert Menendez (/mɛˈnɛndɛz/; born January 1, 1954) is an American lawyer and politician [...]. This is because, although he is not notable as a lawyer, his occupation as a lawyer is a valid biographical descriptor. No one is claiming that Greene is not a conspiracy theorist, the thing in contention is whether including that in the first sentence is a valid biographical descriptor. Curbon7 (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Oops Yopienso, I just noticed you said the same exact thing I did right above here lol/ Curbon7 (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Not sure I follow. That’s exactly what I’m saying the RS say. That she’s a conspiracy theorist who happens to have got elected. DeCausa (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
But she wasn't a nationally-known conspiracy theorist before she ran for Congress. That's the point. She could have been a conspiracy theorist till she died at age 100 but wouldn't have been nationally (and internationally) known unless she ran for national office or did something else notable. YoPienso (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey everybody. I think the RfC is asking the wrong question. The lead section of the article as of now does give appropriate weight to Greene's promotion of conspiracy theories. The second paragraph is a nice long summary of this topic. And then there's the "Advocacy based on conspiracy theories" section. There's nothing undue about any of that. But the lead should not say that she's a "conspiracy theorist". That would be someone whose full-time job is to promote or create conspiracy theories. Like, they spend most of their time writing books about conspiracy theories, and speaking about them on talk radio shows. So the lead sentence should just say that she's a American politician and businesswoman who has served as the U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district since 2021. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
That's the confusion, I think. Many reliable sources say that Greene is a politician who espouses and promulgate conspiracy theories, but they don't say that she's "a conspiracy theorist". So this article should follow the sources and do (or not do) the same. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
There's no confusion, Greene IS a politician who espouses and promulgate conspiracy theories. That is why "conspiracy theorist" is 3rd in the descriptor list, after politician and businesswoman. It is a major aspect of her notability. Zaathras (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Then why not say "Greene is a politician who espouses and promulgate conspiracy theories," rather than say she is a "conspiracy theorist?" Whys not reflect the phrasing in the preponderance of reliable sources? TFD (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Incidentally, it does not establish her notability, but is a key aspect of her. So Trump for example, is notable both as a businessman and politician, because both careers merit a Wikipedia article, while there would be no article about Greene had she not run for Congress. TFD (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
This comment in the present tense smacks of WP:CRYSTAL. At wikipedia we dont say what a person is doing right this second, what report on things that have happened in the past and have been documented in RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Um, yes, we do say what a person is doing right this second, if it is deemed noteworthy enough by sources. We don't wait weeks or months to analyze. Your responses are hitting a bit wide of the mark lately. Zaathras (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The second source does not call Greene a "politician and conspiracy theorist, but as "Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has spread far-right conspiracy theories." That's the phrasing I suggested because that is as you rightly require "what the preponderance of reliable sources state about the subject." Incidentally, sources one and three do not use the terms conspiracy theory or conspiracy theorist at all. TFD (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I too would support this type of wording as it depicts the actions of the article subject. Someone who has done something doesn't mean the person IS something. This is all pure common sense and general respect no matter how objectionable the article subject is to us personally. We are not here to push our POVs, only to create an encyclopedia of actions and events. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Exactly what TFD and Jtbobwaysf are saying--she promotes conspiracy theories. YoPienso (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
A conspiracy theorist is someone who promotes conspiracy theories. I mean, I don't really care whether we use that descriptor or not, but I do care about the quality of discussion here, and pretending that there is some sort of huge semantic gulf between "promotes conspiracy theories" and "is a conspiracy theorist" is a silly waste of time at best. MastCellTalk 00:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
If you think it is a silly waste of time, why are you arguing so emphatically that we use the term "conspiracy theorist" instead of "promotes conspiracy theories?" Why does Conservapedia say, "was the 42th president of the United States and the second to be impeached, while Wikipedia says, "is an American politician who served as the 42nd president of the United States from 1993 to 2001." It's because Conservaedia is a tendentious wiki whose objective is to degrade liberals, rather than reflect the tone in "liberal media," while Wikipedia follows the weight in reliable sources and uses a neutral tone. Let's not turn it into a liberal version of Conservapedia. As Jimbo said, "I should add, for completeness, that in ordinary speaking I personally have no problems with calling MTG a "conspiracy theorist" without qualification. But I do agree with you that it is a valid question whether Wikipedia should. It's worth reminding ourselves that there's a wide range of ways that we can handle this, many of which stop far short of Wikipedia asserting that she's a conspiracy theorist. ("sometimes described by major newspapers and political opponents as a conspiracy theorist" is a quick first thought.)" [07:54, 27 June 2022][16]TFD (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not "arguing emphatically" that we use the words "conspiracy theorist"; why do you think that? I literally just said that I don't care whether we use it, because there's no significant semantic difference between "conspiracy theorist" and "person who promotes conspiracy theories". Did you not read my comment, or do you have me mistaken for someone else? MastCellTalk 16:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Regarding "while Wikipedia follows the weight in reliable sources and uses a neutral tone...", well, therein lies the problem. Or more specifically, your problem. Reliable sources, by and large, are no longer using a "neutral tone" when discussing the unhinged, conspiratorial lunacy that has consumed the American conservative movement in the last 5-7 years. They are more and more frequently now calling American conservatives for what they are. Fascists. Conspiracy theorists. Russian propagandists. The dancing around reality is over, so the Wikipedia follows the brusqueness and directness of the reliable sources, which in this case is to describe Marjorie Taylor Greene as a conspiracy theorist as if it is her full-blown focus of her life. Because, well, it kind of is. You're clinging to a genteel Wikipedia (and an American media) of 2012 that is long-gone. Zaathras (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Your statement is false. The vast majority of articles about MTG do not refer to her as a conspiracy theorist and I have not come across any articles in mainstream media that refer to even Trump's most loyal supporters in Congress as fascists. TFD (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Not false at all. Maybe it is time to evolve one's horizons past the New York Times and the Saturday Evening Post. Zaathras (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
First of all, why? The New York Times is similar in tone to all the other most respected news sources. Second, what sources do you recommend? TFD (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
It is indeed necessary we consider multiple sources other than NYT. Just because NYT calls someone xyz, doesnt mean we follow that in wikivoice. I think we are all aware by now that most of these mainstream media publications are now some sort of political slant, where fox is on the right and nyt is on the left. We dont need to start using the labels that fox, nyt, cnn, etc all promote. Doing so would be absurd. If there is evidence she has promoted conspiracy theories (her action) we can deal with that. But the label (this person is xyz) we dont need that. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Note that it was Zaathras who brought up the NYT. My comment was that we should describe her the way she is normally described in "mainstream media." None of the normally describe her as a conspiracy theorist, although they have done so in a very few cases. TFD (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it is a waste of time to discuss the use of these terms. Some dictionaries define "theorist" as a composer or developer of a theory. Some extend this to include a person who spreads a theory or even just believes in the theory. I have examined some of the sources in this article. They all say she spreads the theories. The headlines sometimes say she is a theorist but none of the text actiually supports the first definition. They do back up the second (extended) definition. To use the analogy of a more respectable theory, by the first definition the evolutionary theorists are Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace and TH Huxley. The second definition would also call the people who have written about evolution in school textbooks and works of popular science and even myself if I talk to somenbody in the pub about the subject. I don't count myself as a theorist in the same way as Darwin was so I prefer the first definition. Moving back to MTG I am not sure she has the intellectual capacity to compose any of her theories but only spreads what she hears others say or reads what they write. Furthermore the sources, as I say, only go that far. I therefore would prefer her to be described as a promoter of conspiracy theories. Where you put that in the article doesn't much matter to me. I have posted these arguments before and have always been shouted down, but I think I have some support from other editors. Spinney Hill (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Close?
I believe it is time to call an end to this discussion, as the consensus is solidly in favor of "conspiracy theorist" in the lede is compliant with WP:DUE. Zaathras (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree that this discussion will come out "in favor". I am fine with closing, yet think that it should wait until the closely related discussion at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Use of_term_"conspiracy_theorist" has finished. I don't expect that the other discussion will change the outcome of this one, but that delaying closure will be a way to show respect for the BLP policy. Note to the closer: The scope of this discussion was considerably broader than the question itself. As I understand it, the question is a binary one about either including the phrase "conspiracy theorist" in the lede or not including it. So the outcome of this RfC does not have bearing on the exact placement of the phrase within the lede or about whether the second paragraph should be kept. It seems likely that there will be more RfCs, or at least discussions, following this one.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion at Jim Wales talk page is just that, a discussion. It has no proposal, no structure, and thus no context in which it will be, quote, "finished". Mr. Wales obviously has massive gravitas as the founder of this project, and we all forever owe him our gratitude. But truthfully, his talk page is a kind of sounding board or watering hole for the Old Guard. The wrapping-up of this formal RfC will not be influenced by anything there. Zaathras (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
More sources: "Marjorie Taylor Greene Suggests 4th of July Shooting Was Orchestrated by Democrats. The conspiracy theorist who once pushed the idea that the California wildfires were started by a laser beamed in from space is, lest we forget, a sitting congresswoman. [17]" "congressional conspiracy theorist Marjorie Taylor Greene[18]" "Marjorie Taylor Greene Is Terrified of the Media Watching Her Testify Under Oath[19]" "Republican QAnon candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene's win highlights coming 2020 crisis. Will the GOP ignore the dangerous conspiracy theorists that even now are being retweeted approvingly Trump? Or will it take this threat to democracy seriously?[20]" "Conspiracy theorist and congressional representative Marjorie Taylor Greene[21]" " Right-wing conspiracy theorist and anti-abortion advocate Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., b"[22] "The country has never once shut down. Not a single school has closed,” the conspiracy theorist wrote."[23] "Conspiracy theorist's rise to Congress"[24] "The conspiracy theorist from Georgia hates vaccine mandates so much that she’s praising the Nation of Islam" [25] "Jews fear what follows after Republicans applauded Marjorie Taylor Greene. It is chilling that rather than condemn the conspiracy theorist’s espousal of antisemitic nonsense, her party supported her"[26]Andrevan@ 18:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
There is clearly a consensus to include it. I participated. Can anyone please close the discussion? Andrevan@ 00:34, 19 July 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.
NATO vote
Springee, her NATO vote is accurately referenced and sourced, and is relevant in the context of the Russian stuff that's already in the article. Andrevan@ 20:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any significant connection between this vote and MTG. Per this NPOVN discussion [27] we need something more than just a list of how people voted in a RS about the bill before including. If her efforts to pass the bill are noted then I think weight would be established. If we argue that it fits into a pattern with her other positions then we are engaged in OR. For this reason I oppose the addition. Springee (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
It's not OR because it fits in with her other votes. We aren't introducing any OR or SYNTH by simply observing that she votes a certain way on certain issues. Additionally she's made a lot of statements about NATO in the past so it's a significant relevance to her. Andrevan@ 20:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
In the NPOVN discussion it was suggested, and I generally agree, that is is a type of OR because we the editors vs RSs are saying there is a notable association between this vote and her other actions. If a source says, "MTG's vote on this bill is in line with her ideas on XYZ" we have that link. Else, we are deciding that link exists which is OR. Springee (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to have to read that discussion to understand what you mean, but from a cursory glance that discussion doesn't appear to have a consensus to support the claim you're making about how to interpret sources. It is not OR to observe that MTG has made statements about NATO that reflect her feelings being anti-NATO, and also voted a certain way on NATO bills. That is all notable, relevant, and verifiable, and is not synthesizing to just observe the same issue was discussed in multiple sources and group those related facts. Andrevan@ 21:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this singular vote is important enough to warrant a standalone mention. We aren't a vote tracker, that's what govtrack.us is for. If it was included in a more encyclopedic way regarding her positions on NATO as a whole, that'd be a different story and would be acceptable imo. Curbon7 (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
That sounds fair. Andrevan@ 21:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the vote is relevant and important and worth including in its own right. She was obviously not voting according to any party whip or following the herd in recording this vote. The subject of the vote is of international importance.Spinney Hill (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
The problem is the article doesn't establish that she is notably associated with this vote or had any impact on the outcome of the vote. As Curbon7 said, we aren't a vote tracker. If a RS said her vote was significant and why then there would be weight for inclusion. If there is a stand alone article on this bill then it may be DUE to mention those who opposed if the article says there are reasons. Springee (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you're missing the bigger picture here. For example, the current article text reads: Throughout the Russo-Ukrainian War, Greene has promoted Russian propaganda and praised Vladimir Putin. During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, she criticized the "corrupt" Ukrainian government and argued against sending Ukraine weapons. The NATO vote is relevant and notable in that same context. It's not just a disconnected list of random votes. It's part of Greene's positioning and stance. Andrevan@ 14:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
This is yet another demonstration of her consistent pro Putin-Russia, anti Ukraine-USA pattern. This goes back to the pre-Trump presidency work by Manafort, which he carried on as campaign chairman, getting the GOP to change their party platform to favor Russia over Ukraine, and getting Trump to repeatedly declare he would reverse the sanctions, an open quid pro quo response to Putin's promise to help Trump win if he removed the sanctions. It carries on the hatred against Ukraine after Trump's failed attempt to pressure Zelensky and getting impeached for it. These Russia-friendly useful idiots keep pushing Putin's party line, and Greene is always among them. Document it here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
More background about Manafort, since I mentioned him. Greene carries on this work. The Senate Intelligence Committee report's coverage of Manafort's "influence operations" is interesting. Manafort was paid very handsomely for pushing Russia's interests in Ukraine. Look at the Table of Contents, and then start on the page with 33 at the bottom (47):
"The Committee limited its investigation of Manafort and his associates to areas related to Russia and Russian-aligned interests. The most significant of Manafort's Russian-aligned interests centered on two overlapping areas: (1) Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and (2) politicians affiliated with the now-defunct Party of Regions (PoR) and its successor, the Opposition Bloc (OB), in Ukraine. In pursuing these relationships, Manafort conducted influence operations that supported and were a part of Russian active measures campaigns, including those involving political influence and electoral interference. These past activities resulted in relationships and levers of influence, including multi-million dollar financial disputes, which persisted throughout Manafort's time as the head of the Trump Campaign. Furthermore, Manafort sought to secretly contact both Deripaska and Ukrainian oligarchs affiliated with the OB in connection with his work on the Trump Campaign. Manafort reached out to both entities before, during, and after his time on the Trump Campaign to provide inside information and offer assistance to these Russian-aligned interests." (bold added)
It is no exaggeration to call Manafort a VERY active "Russian asset" (not a useful idiot) while leading the Trump campaign. He actively pushed for Russia and against Ukraine, and he was paid to do this. He also shared important campaign data with Deripaska, who of course shared it with Russian intelligence so they could use it to more precisely target American voters. It is because of Manafort's anti-Ukraine, pro-Russian, activities and interests that the Trump campaign got the GOP to change its party platform about support for Russia vs. Ukraine. Russia used Manafort to get their will with Trump, who willingly complied as he would, and did, benefit from the arrangement. This was a fulfillment of Trump's very public promises to Putin, a real quid pro quo, to back off on U.S. support for Ukraine, IOW to weaken and lift the sanctions that hurt Putin and his oligarch friends, especially Deripaska (Trump later succeeded in lifting the sanctions against him). In exchange, Putin would support Trump's candidacy, and he really came through. Trump repeatedly and very publicly stated before the election that he would seek to lift the sanctions when elected. The Steele dossier accurately described this long before the intelligence community, Mueller Report, and Senate Intelligence Committee all documented it. The red thread behind nearly all the Trump-Russia business is about those sanctions. Trump would help Putin by lifting the sanctions in exchange for Russian interference in the elections. It was always about the sanctions, and Russia managed to surround Trump with Russia-friendly people who thought like him, because Trump too was Russia-friendly and had publicly expressed anti-American views. Greene, like Trump, is a very useful idiot, IOW acting as a Russian asset. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Agree, this is all relevant, and should be included Andrevan@ 16:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
How are RSs saying this is significant when talking about MTG? If a sources says, "her vote is consistent with her objections to X" then I think we have a RS that says why it should be included. If we just say "she voted for Y" then we aren't establishing why this is DUE. We might feel it's due but that becomes a type of OR. We are using our opinions rather than sources about the topic to establish WEIGHT. Springee (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
That's not right. MTG's vote on NATO is logically linked to her statements and participation in the Russia arena. That is a reasonable WP:MNA for this topic. There's plenty of known background that NATO is a flash point for Russia, Ukraine, et al. MTG has voted and spoken on the issue. Provided this material is properly sourced, it is not original research to simply add it together and cover this issue as a cohesive block of thought. Andrevan@ 21:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I've opened a general NPOVN discussion related to this topic here [28]. Springee (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I have replied there and I hope we can continue productively discussing it here as well. Andrevan@ 21:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Analysts may look at MTG's vote and say it demonstrates her support for Putin. Or they may think it's part of her anti-globalist agenda. Or maybe there was a vote in the Freedom Caucus beforehand. Then they can write an article about it, the 24 hour news cycle will pick up on it and it can find its way into this article. In the meantime, we have no reliable sources that say anything beyond how she voted. So we can't say it is more important or relevant than any of the her other 15,000 votes or abstentions in the current Congress except by providing our own analysis which is prohibited by NOR. TFD (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
That's a straw man and a mischaracterization. We are debating simply including the fact of her vote, and not trying to include anything you just said. Andrevan@ 22:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
You wrote, "For example, the current article text reads: Throughout the Russo-Ukrainian War, Greene has promoted Russian propaganda and praised Vladimir Putin. During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, she criticized the "corrupt" Ukrainian government and argued against sending Ukraine weapons. The NATO vote is relevant and notable in that same context. It's not just a disconnected list of random votes. It's part of Greene's positioning and stance.[14:12, 20 July 2022][29]
Clearly the reason you want to include this vote is that you believe, as I stated, "it demonstrates her support for Putin."
Absolutely not, I never said a word about Putin. I believe it demonstrates her opposition to NATO and her position that she believes NATO expansion is what is causing the Russian war in Ukraine, or something along those lines. Andrevan@ 01:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
You quoted the article where it says she "praised Vladimir Putin." Regardless, it is not the role of editors to provide evidence in support of conclusions reported in the article because it violates NOR. If our sources say that her vote "demonstrates her opposition to NATO," etc., we may consider its mention assuming it has due weight. The only way you can believe it demonstrates her opposition to NATO is if you do analysis. You know what her views are, you know what NATO is, you assume the vote is based on your understanding of her views. But all we know is what reliable sources say and they are silent on this.
Even if your proposed wording does not make an explicit connection it makes an implicit one. "MTG opposes NATO, MTG voted to keep two countries out. I'm not saying the two are connected but nudge nudge wink wink say no more." Incidentally, articles shoul never make implicit claims, even when rs do.
Disagree, it is WP:NOTOBVIOUSSYNTHWP:MNA that if MTG speaks out against NATO, and votes against NATO, that those two things are related. Andrevan@ 02:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
It's clear synthesis because you are taking information from different sources, viz., information that MTG is anti-NATO an information that she vote against accepting new members, in order to reach a conclusion not stated in either of them, i.e., that she voted that way because she opposed NATO. While the connection may be obvious, there are other possible explanations and therefore we need to rely on expert opinion.
It is possible that MTG voted against including the new countries because she believes it would lead to a wider war. Or maybe she thinks that Swedes and Finns are liberals or socialists and do not deserve U.S. support. Or maybe she is doing this because she supports Russia in the war. Personally I don't want to get inside MTG's head and leave it to experts. One shouldn't try, because one might not get out.
That is just speculation. It's not speculation to write, "MTG said that US should leave NATO to avoid a war with Russia over Ukraine. She then voted against allowing Sweden and Finland to join NATO," or something of that sort. We are not saying she voted that way because of any reasoning in particular, but she made a statement about NATO, and then she voted a way on it. No synthesis, no OR. Andrevan@ 03:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Of course it is synthesis, because it implies that her vote was a result of her opposition to NATO. In fact, your text is similar to the examples provided in Synthesis of published material. This is the type of wording one would expect from Donald Trump, Fox News Channel hosts or MTG. George W. Bush used it effectively in the run up to the Iraq War when he kept juxtaposing Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, leading most people to assume they were connected. He later was able to say he never made the claim. But this is an encyclopedia, not a partisan propaganda organ. TFD (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
So you believe it is not a reasonable assumption that if she is against NATO, and speaks out against NATO and United States' membership in NATO, and votes against a bill that would expand NATO, we cannot say those two statements together because that would be too strong of an implication? I do not believe that is synthesizing a conclusion. You are speculating as to conclusions that could be made, but I am not doing that. I am doing the reasonable obvious assumption: if a politician says they are against something, and then they vote against that thing being made bigger, those two statements are logically connected. We are not speculating as to WHY she is against NATO: she herself told us that she is against NATO due to Russia-Ukraine. Expanding NATO is something that pertains to foreign policy and that the vote pertains to the position. Andrevan@ 03:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Per no synthesis, it is not up to editors to determine they are connected, but to rely on rs to make the connection. And as I said, while that is a reasonable assumption, there are other reasonable assumptions. Since my thought process differs from MTG's, I can have no certainty about how she thinks. If you are closer to her thought process, then your analysis would be better than mine, but it's still OR. TFD (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I can't agree with this, per WP:MNAWP:NOTOBVIOUSSYNTH and the basic table stakes for US politics. If a politician says they oppose X, and then vote against X, that is not synthesis because we are not making any conclusions. Andrevan@ 03:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
You have already said that. Do you have anything else to say? TFD (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
See this comment and this comment. Based on this, I would like to expand the info on MTG's foreign policy views according to RS. Andrevan@ 01:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@TFD but also everyone, she voted the way she did because that's what she calculated would help her the most politically, since it made zero difference in terms of policy, and her vote on the issue has little value for trade. And of the 500+ voted-upon pieces of meaningful legislation (of 10,000+ total) this session in the House as a minority member, how many votes do you think she made in the belief that it would actually tip the vote count balance in favor of enacting her radical policy goals, versus just being what she calculated would raise funds and advance her career (of course those things can and do intersect)? The point is that any single assembly-style vote is an utterly worthless if not misleading data point to throw at a reader, especially next to any single policy position, with very few exceptions: John McCain's famous thumbs down is a great example, and of course it was amply covered by secondary sources -- maybe that should be part of some policy or guideline! SamuelRiv (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree to a point, I certainly agree that source coverage is key, but I don't agree that whether or not the vote affects policy is relevant to its notability. Many futile, quixotic or symbolic votes might be notable if they are covered. For example, there were many notable failed filibusters, which is technically procedurally moot just a delaying tactic. Andrevan@ 03:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
You say she voted that way because "she calculated would help her the most politically," Andrevan said she voted that way because she opposes NATO, while others have said she is a Putin puppet. Funny how what you and Andrevan see as "obvious" isn't the same thing. TFD (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I did not say she voted for any reason. I said that she has stated she opposes NATO, and she voted against NATO, so therefore the article can group related facts. I stated that we should not make any conclusions but let the reader do so. Juxtaposing related facts is not OR or SYNTH. Andrevan@ 04:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I have added a couple of sentences on Greene's foreign policy per the above and the NPOV/N discussion. This improves the article by helping to educate the reader on Greene's foreign policy views and alignment, and her corresponding voting. Andrevan@ 14:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Support new photo It' more recent and appears to be an official photo. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Is it subject to copyright conditions or is it released for general use without payment? Doesn't look much of an improvement to me but if the answer to the questiomn is that there are no copright restrictions I'd have no objections. The setting is very similar. A picture without the flag would be better perhaps.. Thats not an insult to the flag but there npov questions at the moment.Spinney Hill (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
We generally stick with the official government image for the infobox. Let's keep in mind that an encyclopedia is not an extension of a politician's press kit, our goal is to be informative, not to hop onto every hi-rez glossy PR pic that they may release. Zaathras (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I like the existing pic better, if only because of the better background and pose. Both appear to be good representations of herself. My 2p. - Roxy the mindfulnessdog 13:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Neutral Nothing better and nothing worse than the current one, so it doesn't matter either way. If I had to pick a preference, I think it would be the current one, just because the color palettes are a bit easier on the eyes. Again, it doesn't matter, as both images are garbage because whoever is her photographer doesn't know how to take 2:3 portraits. Curbon7 (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose: Not a huge improvement and if anything the current image is better. Also needs a clear indication of no copyright problems.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 18:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Neutral - don't have an opinion on the quality of the pic, do have some minor concerns that these aren't appropriately tagged with the information needed for works created by US Congress. Usually an official photo doesn't come from Twitter and Facebook but some official US gov't database of photographs. Andrevan@ 19:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
The current image in the infobox cites Twitter as the source.
File:Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene official photo, 117th Congress (cropped).jpg
The old image matches the one on Congress.gov so it's presumably the same one. This new one could have been created by a private social media company or her campaign unless we know otherwise. Andrevan@ 06:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose until there is clear evidence that the license is compatible. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Strong oppose, barring evidence that it is in the public domain. I have nominated the image(s) for deletion from Commons for failing to have a suitable license. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The hatchet job on Marjorie Taylor Green needs re-writing, preferably by someone not full of animus toward Miss Green.
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)
[Prompt]. Can you be more specific? Andre🚐 05:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
Maybe, but first they need to find such sources. Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
This isn't a forum for general complaining. Zaathras (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
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.
Labeling someone "Far right" or "extremist" is opinion that should NOT be in this article or any other. Articles should state only facts in an unbiased way. Example: "She is married and has three children." or "She was raised Catholic." Both of those statements contain no opinion. Reduce or eliminate adjectives that introduce opinion in your articles. Danecooper (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but this has already been discussed and there are plenty of sources that support it, so it stays in. Andre🚐 03:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
We havent discussed the extremist label, so I removed that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
and I reverted it, because it's sourced, and relevant, and there was no reason to remove it. Andre🚐 05:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The article is a hatchet job written by a biased individual. Other than that, great! Young waif (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
It was actually written by tens, probably hundreds of people. Andre🚐 04:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
no it's slander and is clearly written by tens , probably hundreds of bad faith actors ... do you think everyone is blind ?? Wikipedia did the same thing to Lauren southerns page. Even the pizza gate and QAnon thing is completely wrong and badly outdated . Seriously ?? Did none of you bother to researched the fallout of Facebooks over sight board decision to ban trump ?? The part were they revealed the existence of facebooks white list , Facebooks 2nd tier policy enforcement ?? Facebook even released tons of files and information about the white list and some of that information covered pizza gate . The wall street journal even did a article and podcast on it called "the facebook files part 1 : the white list". and here is a link for it to read at your leisure https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/the-facebook-files-part-1-the-whitelist/72a1e8f5-a187-4a91-bedb-b0b0d39f5cce?mod=series_facebookfiles 157.211.12.205 (talk) 00:48, 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.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2022
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)
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)
It was taken out. You want it put back in? The article can't cover every little thing. For example, I don't see anything about her yelling at Biden during the SOTU speech this year. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
PPP incident
The article mentions her PPP loan incident, which is in the news again[30] Not sure whether, where and how to expand this. Andre🚐 05:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Making mention of the White House series of tweets, in relation to her (and other politicians) who took the PPP money, but are now talking bad about student loan debt relief? Maybe in the "Responses" section? Not sure where best to put this info, either. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
"Responses" section seems a good option. Andre🚐 19:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
should there be some mention of the "swatting" incident?
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?
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)
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)
Sounds good, thanks for your response! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
In the meantime, I will continue to compile relevant articles here.
Minor incident, leave it out for now. Andre🚐 04:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
I'm inclined to agree with you. Wording seems fine. ser!(chat to me - see my edits) 20:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
I see no reason why not. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
ohh so you will link all those far left news sources and show everyone your extremely bias but you won't even include how she is being swatted . just wow . How are you guys in charge of this page . You're clearly bias 157.211.12.205 (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, we are waiting for more details to emerge. Right now, it's mostly just a story about the cops politely knocking on her door two nights in a row. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
> Gets swatted by a computer voice that tells her they came from Kiwi Famsm
> IMMEDIATELY BELIEVES IT COMPLETELY.
Wow. Just... wow. I mean, I know your average American has the mental capacity of a herd animal, politicians especially, but this is just sad.18:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.97.22 (talk)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2022
I will not donate to a web site that contains critical and negative information towards a political figure that is based on hatred and opinionated information that is not factual at all. I have looked at a few people on here so far and I will reference one of many that should be changed to reflect the values of honesty and of non-hypocritical statements made on a person, regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs or political beliefs/party. It also only speaks of partiality of am article by NPR.org: https://www.npr.org/2021/02/04/963785609/house-to-vote-on-stripping-rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-from-2-key-committees
The edits requested below reflects these facts and not opinions:
Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974), also known by her initials MTG,[2] is an American politician, businesswoman, and far-right American[3] who has served as the U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district since 2021.[4] A member of the Republican Party and a strong supporter of former president Donald Trump, she was elected to Congress in 2020 following the retirement of Republican incumbent Tom Graves. Greene identifies as a Christian nationalist.[5]
A supporter of Trump's efforts to overturn his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election, Greene has repeatedly claimed that Trump won the election in a landslide victory that was stolen from him.[7] She called for Georgia's election results to be decertified[8] and was among a group of Republican legislators who unsuccessfully challenged votes for Biden during the Electoral College vote count, even though federal agencies and courts overseeing the election found no evidence of electoral fraud.[9] Greene filed articles of impeachment against Biden the day after his inauguration, alleging abuse of power.[10][11]
The Partisan US House of Representatives voted to remove Greene from all committee roles on February 4, 2021, in response to allegations against her for extremist statements and endorsements of political violence which she has denied on several occasions saying these comments don't represent her. Eleven Republicans joined the unanimous Democrats in the vote.[12][13] Greene is running for reelection in 2022.[14] Gregory O'Neal (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
This reads like it was ripped straight from the Conservapedia. Zaathras (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The request looks like just another example of right-wing trolling of this article. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I would bet there's a forum that's coaching them to threaten that they'll stop donating money. It's quite repetitive. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it reads like a canned script. As if he had ever actually donated. And as if WMF needs the money anyway. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
The next time an aggrieved anon drops by the page to say they aren't donating anymore, I will donate $10 to the WMF. Andre🚐 20:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Having no picture of her at all could qualify as "a case of addition by subtraction". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Photo
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)
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)
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)
The claim referenced on Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene/Archive_3#Proposed_profile_photo_change regarding the image being created by the Republican Party has been disputed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marjorie Taylor Greene.jpg. Further, just by her official Congressional social media channels putting out the image indicates it was created solely with government funds and resources. Otherwise, the Congresswoman would have incurred a House Ethics violation. But there is clearly no claim made by the Republican Party in any way, shape or form. The House Republican Conference, which is part of the U.S. House of Representatives, did in fact publish the image as her official Member portrait to their .gov Website. Aernsthouse (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, I don't think the new image is better, and it doesn't have evidence of a permissible license, so I don't think we should change it. It's not an improvement. Andre🚐 04:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Andre, I'm so excited to be back in this thread with an UPDATED Congress.gov portrait. Virtually every official source of information regarding Congresswoman Greene now displays this new photo of her, EXCEPT Wikipedia, which make her existing page outdated. I STRONGLY recommend updating this page with the new photo to ensure a quality Wikipedia page. Aernsthouse (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
First off, we are not an official source for anything. Second, what is its copyright status? Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Still no sign of the photo being public domain or compatibly licensed. The Congress.gov site has it captioned with "Image courtesy of the Member". Other senators and reps make it clear the photo was taken or licensed by a federal government agency. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, folks, but the current image on Commons doesn't appear to have any proof that it was an official image created by a federal agency either. Andre🚐 19:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
The good news for MTG fans is that there's a whole gaggle of MTG images to choose from commons:Category:Marjorie Taylor Greene. How about this one, it seems nice. :-DAndre🚐 20:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Neither is the old one out of date. It still looks recent. She has not grown a beard,radically changed her hair. started wearing glasses permanently or had serious surgery on her face. Even if she had, an old picture can be acceptable. Spinney Hill (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
Also, FWIW, most official portraits that are under the PD-us license are taken by a U.S. House employee, the U.S. House photographer. No evidence has been provided that these were. Andre🚐 20:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Here's how we can tell on House.gov and Congress.gov[33][34] doesn't say courtesy of the member, says "Collection of the U.S. House of Representatives" Andre🚐 02:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
The current image is the one used on the government page:[35] ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Frankly I'm simultaneously astonished and resigned to the fact that MTG can muddy the waters of such a simple issue as an official government portrait. Zaathras (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Done. Good point. I have moved "far-right" so it modifies "politician", but have not changed the part about "conspiracy theorist" as it's still under discussion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:39, 3 July 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. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
![[32]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene.jpg){kind=link}
