Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 14 days
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
Karni, Annie; Baker, Mike (February 1, 2021). "An emboldened extremist wing is flexing its power in a leaderless G.O.P.". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 15, 2021. Retrieved February 1, 2021. With the departure of former President Donald J. Trump, the G.O.P. has become a leaderless party, with past standard-bearers changing their voter registrations, luminaries like Senator Rob Portman of Ohio retiring, and far-right extremists like Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia building a brand on a web of dangerous conspiracy theories.
Q: Why does the article call Greene a "conspiracy theorist"?
Consensus is that multiple, independent, reliable sources describe Greene as an advocate or promoter of a "conspiracy theory" or a "conspiracy theorist". See RFC closed with consensus to keep[1] These include the following:
Sources
Full coverage
Judd, Alan (September 7, 2020). "Georgia's Marjorie Taylor Greene riding political fringe to Congress". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Chattanooga Times Free Press. Retrieved June 27, 2022. For the past three years, Greene has used a network of far-right websites and social media accounts to spread baseless, often absurd conspiracy theories that demonize Trump's political enemies while raising her profile among extremist groups.
Morin, Rebecca; Jackson, David; Brown, Matthew (September 18, 2020). "Twitter temporarily suspends account of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene". USA Today. Archived from the original on January 24, 2021. Retrieved January 24, 2021. Greene is a firebrand conspiracy theorist who has claimed the United States is experiencing an 'Islamic invasion into our government offices,' ....
"Conspiracy theorist's apparent rise to Congress" (Video). CNN. Archived from the original on January 24, 2021. Retrieved January 24, 2021. Greene has left a trail of her own videos, Tweets, and social media posts that establish her as a bigoted anti-Islamic conspiracy theorist who recently also believed in the QAnon conspiracies.
Zanona, Melanie; Mutnick, Ally; Bresnahan, John (August 13, 2020). "McCarthy faces QAnon squeeze". Politico. Retrieved January 24, 2021. The rise of Greene – an unapologetic QAnon conspiracy theorist who has made disparaging remarks about Jews, Blacks, and Muslims – is threatening to hurt the entire party....
Kruse, Michael (February 25, 2021). "'Nobody Listened To Me': The Quest to Be MTG". Politico Magazine. Retrieved June 27, 2022. What she did was start in 2017 to create a new identity—as an anti-media, anti-Muslim, anti-trans, pro-gun, pro-wall, pro-Trump provocateur, columnist and conspiracist.
From colleagues
Garvey, Declan (August 14, 2020). "Marjorie Greene Is Already Causing Problems for the GOP". The Dispatch. Retrieved June 27, 2022. 'Greene could have a devastating impact on the Republican party at-large,' a top House GOP aide texted The Dispatch. 'It's one thing to have fringe members who represent very ideological districts. It's quite another to have a member who is an avowed conspiracy theorist and traffics in hateful rhetoric that offends the vast majority of Americans.'
Wise, Alana (February 1, 2021). "McConnell Slams Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Conspiracies As 'Loony Lies'". NPR. Retrieved June 27, 2022. 'Loony lies and conspiracy theories are cancer for the Republican Party and our country. Somebody who's suggested that perhaps no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that horrifying school shootings were pre-staged, and that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr.'s airplane is not living in reality,' [GOP Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell said in a short statement Monday night that doesn't directly cite [Greene] by name.
Q: Why does the article call Greene's ideas "extremist"?
See a closed discussion where there was a consensus to call her ideas "extremist."[2]
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I am surprised that this article was given "good article" status. First of all, it is not especially well-written and could definitely use more proofreading. Second of all, it has a supermarket tabloid-esque quality to it. In fairness, the supermarket tabloid-esque quality may be inevitable given who the article is about. MonMothma (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
This article achieved good article status two-and-a-half years ago and has certainly diminished in quality since then. Curbon7 (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
We need rather more concrete proposals to work with, what are your specific objections? Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was surprised, too. In any case - a little example, if anyone cares - comma error (needed after Georgia):
The tag was a WP:DRIVEBY by an editor with zero edits to either this page or the talk page prior to the addition of the page. The existing version was absolutely fine as it was. I've restored it. ser!(chat to me - see my edits) 18:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Labelling her far-right isn't wrong but she's also commonly called right-wing, so including both makes more sense to me and seems more neutral --FMSky (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
She's much more widely described as far-right than right wing. Looking at the sources you added for right wing: this one also calls her far-right, this one doesn't even mention "right wing" and instead says she has a history of spreading "far-right conspiracy theories", the third one is an op-ed which calls her viewpoints "vile" and probably isn't great to use on a BLP, and this one appears to be a local news outlet which isn't quite as good as the litany of other RSPs calling her far-right. That leaves an article from TruthOut and SkyNews, which in themselves aren't enough to add "has also been called right-wing" without providing WP:FALSEBALANCE. ser!(chat to me - see my edits) 18:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
These were just the first ones I found after 5 minutes googling, there are tons more. But either way I just think its wrong to tag her right in the opening sentence. Imo saying "has often been described as far-right" would sound less loaded, but thats just me --FMSky (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
With all due respect, do you not think this might be a bit WP:POINTy given you added "far-left" to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's article (a much less frequently used label for her than this for MTG, might I add), citing this exact article as an example? Either you think it's "wrong to tag" people in the opening sentence or not, and I can't tell which. ser!(chat to me - see my edits) 19:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I literally did that because this page had far-right right in the opening sentence. It goes both ways. I also proposed another version there https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez&oldid=1213359430 Notice how I try different versions, try to find compromises while other users are just dead-set on their preferred ones. Really interesting imo --FMSky (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Right, so you're not necessarily against adding labels, good to know. The amount of sources describing MTG as being on the far-right are substantive enough, as determined by past discussions, to highlight it as prominently as it is in this article - hell, most of the reason she is known is for being a far-right politician, as if she was just a regular right-wing Republican two-term incumbent she'd be nowhere near as notable. ser!(chat to me - see my edits) 19:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not a massive fan of "far-right" in general (or for that matter "far-left", as per my edit on another female US politican recently). However, there's always an exception or two, and really if any US politician has the weight of reliable sources calling them "far-right", it's MTG, who is the definition of the phrase. I mean, just read that second paragraph in the lede. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
You guys may be right. I just hadnt seen it on any politician before tbh --FMSky (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do not think we should be describing modern politicians with "far-right" or "far-left" in the first sentence of the lede. I think it is WP:UNDUE because such terms are meaningless on their own (when compared to actual ideologies like communist or liberal) and need explanation, which can only occur further into the lede, and is often a lazy and cheap way of getting out of explaining entirely (such as in Josh Mandel). Curbon7 (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with this. The only time such labels should be used in the lead in WP:WIKIVOICE is if they're pulled from historians analyses, in which case the subjects are often deceased. Doing so on the basis of partisan sources that like to use labels to sensationalize headlines is incredibly irresponsible as an encyclopedia and almost certainly warrants further discussion per WP:BLPCT. Almost every modern controversial politician will have contentious labels associated with them (and this goes for either side) by the main stream media. That doesn't mean we need to use them as well to describe them in a lead. (There is certainly an argument to include it in the body where we describe how they are portrayed in modern media.) Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Could you let us know which sources currently used for this claim you view as "partisan"? I'm near certain all of them are reliable sources per WP:RSP. ser!(chat to me - see my edits) 17:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just because a source is deemed reliable does not guarantee it is without bias or partisanship -- especially when it comes to politics. I presumed that an editor with your experience would know that. WP:BIASEDKcmastrpc (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sure, but much of the sources on RSP are deemed reliable because of their lack of bias. Could you tell us which sources you consider "partisan"? ser!(chat to me - see my edits) 18:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think an RFC is needed to clear this up --FMSky (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would support an RFC if you were so inclined to open one. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see no support in any policy not to describe modern politicians as far-right or far-left, if that is how reliable sources describe them. Quite the opposite : see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jeppiz (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
First off, IDONTLIKEIT is about arguments to avoid in discussions. Secondly, reliably sourced coverage is the basis of every article we have. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Most particularly when we're dealing with a BLP subject. BusterD (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Which is exactly why we city such a large number of reliable sources all characterization MTG as far-right. Jeppiz (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do we say that a media organization mentioned this article?
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/demonstrably-heterosexual/ "What do you think Wikipedia says about her? Who is Marjorie Taylor Greene? She is a conspiracy theorist. She has extreme right views. As soon as a person says something that shows they are normal, America's media behemoth declares them a conspiracy theorist and a person of extreme right views."
Idk if this is specific enough to say that they mentioned this particular article. Woozybydefault (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why? it does not seem significant to her. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, a passing mention of her Wikipedia article should not be mentioned in the article itself. If anything, {{Press}} could be used on the talk page. In this case, though, I don't think the mention is even significant enough to be listed on the talk page. Wrackingtalk! 15:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
{{Press}} was what I meant to suggest, though in hindsight it does look like I was suggesting we mention it in the article. After thinking about it, I agree with you that it's too trivial to mention in {{Press}}. Woozybydefault (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply