Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene

Controversy integration

I suppose the first thing to consider is this: Is the prose of the controversy section ok? That is, is the only thing we should change is the moving of the sections? Curbon7 (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

For now I think we can just move it all into Political positions. With the exception of the Qanon stuff we we should move into General election.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I was thinking the two "Responses" sections could fit into the tenure sub-section. Curbon7 (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Or that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Prose ok. I moved the sections. Responses could be moved, but it might be better to keep them this way. — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Alalch Emis, looks solid, great job! Curbon7 (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

After seeing this article and quote conspiracy theorist being used is if there was a real definition of that word and not just an attack on somebody's character oh, I no longer will support Wikipedia and I will spread the word that it is nothing but a left-wing bias and useless source of information. -Jf (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Jmurphy914, the definition of conspiracy theorist is one who believes conspiracy theories. What precisely in Marjorie_Taylor_Greene#Advocacy_based_on_conspiracy_theories is inaccurate or biased? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Because "conspiracy theory" is ambiguous. Anything can be called one by anyone and it's being used as an attack on her character, not for actual information. -Jf (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If anything, there is a conspiracy to make this woman look like a radical terrorist on here for multiple editors own political reasons -Jf (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia follows what the sources have to say, not one's feelings. Taylor Greene is described as a conspiracy theorist by a rather large swath of reliable sources, so the article reflects that. ValarianB (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Multiple mentions of the same thing

Is this standard practice? Even if it is perhaps applicable to multiple sub-topics within an article, it seems a little odd to list Rep. Greene's Twitter ban in both the Twitter section and the Covid-19 section. Zaathras (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It's relevant in both sections and is relatively short. If it were longer, there might be cause for concern. -- Valjean (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we do not need to mention anything more than once (except in the lead and body).Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so where is the best spot? Mention in the need would obviate any need for multiple mentions, so I'll do that. It's a pretty notable event. -- Valjean (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Either fits.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I left the one in the Twitter section since her other Twitter sanctions are all mentioned there. -- Valjean (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Is being banned form a social media platform lead-worthy? Zaathras (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

For a high-profile person, it really is. -- Valjean (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

For now I would say yes; we can re-assess further down the line. Curbon7 (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I dunno. Trump's persona was wrapped so tightly around social media prevarication, and the fact that he was the leader of one of the most powerful nations on earth, that his ban from multiple platforms was a seismic event - and that doesn't even rate a mention in the lead of his article. MTG is one of 435 members of the House, and has only been a member for literally 365 days. Is her ban (and only her personal account, @RepMTG is still active) really that critical to her biography? Zaathras (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras: Let me give you a slightly different perspective. Trump was the president for 4 years (plus lenthy campaigns before and controversies after); there's so much ground to cover. Social media bans were just one aspect. The Donald Trump article has a whole section about his Twitter issue and a standalone article, Social media use by Donald Trump. It took Trump 4 years before he got his ban. We can't make the Trump article lead paragraph 3 volumes long, now can we.

On the other hand Greene has only been in office a year, and her posts have been so controversial that her Twitter account was suspended at the start of her so-far one year service, again at the mid-point, and now losing her account. Any non-high-profile person would have lost their Twitter account long before one year had passed.

With social media being the primary medium through which disinformation purveyors have been operating, and the backlash and pressure on Big Tech to do something about it, barring a high-profile user has been a headline-making event, followed by continued debate (and protest). Greene continued to push that envelope and Twitter eventually said "stop!" I'm sure she's privately wearing it as a badge of honor at the same time she's publicly railing against the ban. Yeah, lead paragraph stuff... at least for this article. Platonk (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

And of course Trump is defending her. -- Valjean (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"National divorce" comments

I can currently not edit the article because of the protection, but Greene's frequent comments about a possible new "civil war", "National Divorce" and possible armed insurrection should be included in it. Some of her comments:

• https://www.salon.com/2022/01/12/marjorie-taylor-greene-suggests-using-second-amendment-rights-against-democrats
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-national-divorce-states-b1984460.html
• https://www.salon.com/2021/12/29/marjorie-taylor-greene-must-be-expelled-for-toying-with-the-idea-of-civil-war-congressman-says_partner/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordostsüdwest (talk • contribs) 21:59, January 15, 2022 (UTC)

THis was a reaction to a single tweet by someone who deliberately courts controversy for the sake of it. No I do not think this is relevant, when (and if) it becomes an actual platform promoted many times, then maybe.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Salon.com is not a source. It's a joke -Jf (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven -Jf (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Greene's rants are further evidence that the whiniest Americans are white people. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, but can we chill out with the racism? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm also white. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not see these "national divorce" comments to matter enough to include, if we're only basing it on those three sources. Salon.com is not the best source, they do lean left too much. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The Second Amendment comment was widely circulated. However, she's made so many controversial comments that we can't list them all. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"has been criticized "

Amitabho, if I do go ahead and revert you three times", that's not a WP:3RR violation, if that's what you're implying. This wording has been agreed to on this talk page. You're adding some potential WP:WEASEL words, this is not an improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• 'Conspiracy theorist' is not a facially neutral term, especially considering that the subject of the article merely believes in conspiracy theories, but does not originate them. The provided sources are articles from the Washington Post, The Guardian and CNN, which border on editorials and refer to her as a 'conspiracy theorist' in passing. The uncritical use of the term preceding her actual role, which - no matter how much you may dislike it - is as the United States representative for the 14th district of Georgia, is indefensible. One may as well quote Fox News, which is far more popular than all of these sources combined, to open the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article with "politician, former bartender and socialist". The use of this term in this way violates WP:NPOV, and NPOV supersedes both your sources (which, again, are news articles from non-neutral sources) and your consensus. At the minimum, 'conspiracy theorist' could be limited to the second paragraph, rather than leading the article as a primary descriptor. — Amitabho Chattopadhyay talk 03:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)