Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2022

Baseless claims she is a conspiracy theorist. 172.74.72.65 (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ for answers as to why we say it. And try to bring something new to th e discusion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is there *any* Wikipedia bio that describes its subject as a "left-wing conspiracy theorist"? A quick search suggests that there isn't. My guess is Wikipedia's editors will have a "reliable source" about how such a thing is impossible. 159.178.247.2 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want to discuss a different subject as being a "left-wing conspiracy theorist", go to that page's talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven: Who is this "We"? I looked at the source list and fail to find any that aren't notoriously tendentious and left-leaning. SienkRJ (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Image

There have been a number of pictures in the infobox,which seem to get changed frequently, and I am confused as to their status. Which ones cannot or can be used please?. And which is the best one to use for wikipedia purposes aside from the copyright issues

1) a picture of MTG in a red dress and black jacket and a black and white patterned curtain on the left side. This does not appear to be a very photo. The top part of her head is cut off. there is glare on her forehead.nose and one cheek. The copyright status appears to be impeccable. It has not been used recently

2) A photo showing one US flag behind MTG and she wears a blue dress or shirt (just visible) and a white jacket. This is an "official photograph" for the 117th Congress. and is stated to be in the public domain but has been challenged for copyright issues. This is the first one I saw and looks to be the best picture in my view.

3) A photo by Gage Skidmore. MTG wears a black dress and wears a prominent cross round her neck. The copyright status seems impeccable

4)A picture said to be an official picture and in the public domain. She wears a flowered dress and looks straight at the camera and has two flags behind her. This was first inserted by user superwiki. It replaced number 3

5) Similar to number 3 but MTG faces the other way and appears to be laughing. User Zaathras preferred this believing number 6 was put in by her press office, but it looks to me as though 4 and 5 come from the same source.She wears the same black dress.

6) Another from the same source

7) No longer visible but my recollection is it was another shot in front of two flags possibly another "official photo"

I am a retired lawyer but my qualification was in England and Wales not any of the US states and copyright is not my subject. Some users have said the "official photos" are in the public domain but ones has been deleted and one is under question so that rule if exists is not absolute. In Britain I believe we have a concept of "Crown Copyright" whereby the copyright of official material is owned by the government. Can we standardise on Number 2 if this is allowed? It seems the best picture to me. I agree we ought not to use pictures provided by the subject's press office even if the press office releases its rights. If we cannot use number 2 are we back to using one of the black dress shots (number 6 looks to me to be the best of these and not obviously a publicity shot but it is not ideal) or are we back to using number one -obvoiusly the worst shot technically. Spinney Hill (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Connormah: here; as the one who uploaded many Congressional portraits (including the current one as of this reply), they may be better placed to explain. SuperWIKI (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: My memory may be hazy here, but I remember that an identical image that was previously deleted came from a Facebook link. Even if that image itself was actually public-domain the source (Facebook) cannot be considered for any proof of such copyright status, hence it was removed. The present upload by Connormah comes from Greene's official Congressional website and if the site's copyright page is any indication, it is evidently public-domain, in accordance with 17 USC 105. SuperWIKI (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The ones that were deleted were probably in the public domain, but were not outwardly listed as such, so they had to have deleted as the license could not be proven (in the US, most things by the Federal government, including congressional portraits, are in the public domain). This one was part of that batch I think, but there is a proper notice on the website now that explicitly says public domain. Curbon7 (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

All US House portraits seem to be authored by House Creative Services and have a very distinctive style, per the many examples at List of new members of the 117th United States Congress (many of them have image metadata identifying them as such, eg File:Jay Obernolte 117th U.S Congress.jpg, though some have also been uploaded in a way that has lost the metadata). The particular portrait on this page that was nominated for deletion, to me, is quite obviously a congressional portrait, likely taken on the same day as other examples like these (note the same date in the metadata, and additional info displaying House Creative Services). Connormah (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I argued that in the deletion discussion over at Commons. But Commons is, er, Commons. Curbon7 (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Name?

Is there some particular reason why this article can’t divulge its subject’s full birth name? TheScotch (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

TheScotch, As far as I'm aware, "Marjorie Taylor" was her full birth name, unless there is something I'm missing. Curbon7 (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is: You're missing her middle name, of course. The article as it currently stands doesn't even say her birth name was "Majorie Taylor" (leaving out the middle name), however. It merely says that her father's surname is "Taylor", and we are left to infer her birth name. We shouldn't be.TheScotch (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

After a web search, I couldn't find a reliable secondary source with her middle name. This is the stumbling block, it hasn't been excluded deliberately. Online genealogy searches etc are not a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

My "divulge" was facetious. I didn't mean to suggest that Wikipedia was secreting the information in a closet in Ma-ra-lago (so to speak). It happens, however, that I came to this article for one reason only: to try to discover this person's original name (after reading that her husband, surname Greene, was divorcing her). It's disappointing that this is just what is conspicuously missing from the article. If you can't find a reliable source, tell me what the unreliable sources say and just don't put it in the article. TheScotch (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Based on Hillary Rodham Clinton, it's a safe bet that her birth name is Marjorie Taylor (BTW did you know that Hillary Clinton's middle name is Diane, I didn't until just now). I'm sure that someone could find MTG's birth certificate online, but it wouldn't be a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Surely a birth certificate issued by the US equivalent of the General Register Office is reliable. A genealogical source would not be on its own. The only problem with a certificate would be connecting the Marjorie Taylor on the certificate with this Marjorie Taylor. Spinney Hill (talk) 09:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY generally bans this sort of thing, and there are also WP:OR problems. I was looking for an online profile in a reliable secondary source that gave her full birth name, but couldn't find one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I take your point on Original Research and Primary Resources. However a certificate from a public register office is a published document. It can be purchased in almost the same way by anybody as a a book or newsaper can be purchased. In sending a request for it one is conducting original research but not quite in the way as a scientist conducting a new experiment or a historian consulting unpublished letters from the 1920s and handwritten documents dating from the 13th century. There are published documents which are easlily obtainable such as a telephone or trade directory but to say that there are such and such a number of grocers' shops in Northampton.England using such sources is probably original research.

This article says "Greene was born in Milledgeville, Georgia, on May 27, 1974, the daughter of Robert Taylor." I don't know how large that town is but there can't be many people called Marjorie Taylor born there on 27 May 1974. A search of the register office would probably find only one It could allow the middle name to be included in the article. It might reveal there were two such people. If Marjorie Anne Taylor's father was Robert and Marjorie Brenda Taylor's father was Albert that would probably show our subject's middle name was Anne . The existing information (which is sourced) would allow the middle name to be published I would have thought. The rules against including sensitive details in biographies of living persons would probably prevent including other details such as the address of the birth or residence of parents which might appear on the certificate. Spinney Hill (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

There's also the interesting omission of her mother's name, I have looked before and there is nothing to be found. Zaathras (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Spouse Information Update

On September 28, 2022 Perry Greene (MTG’s Husband) filed for divorce shouldn’t the profile in the spouse section be updated to Perry Greene (m. 1995 sep. 2022)? 67.212.47.110 (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have noted that they are separated.[3] We do not know how long they have been separated, however. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

He had done it before, they have reconciled before. So I am unsure this is relevant, when they divorce it might be. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this a hate speech?

I hope a team (or a person) who can stay neutral in this diverse political climate re-edit this. This article, in its current form, is not neutral; it is more like a political propaganda full of hate. 2001:569:5316:F100:CC36:1C45:F38F:1301 (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

That sounds pretty disingenuous, especially given you've not provided any examples to back up your claims. Content is taken solely from reliable sources, adhering to neutral point of view (see subsections WP:WEIGHT, WP:VALID, WP:BALANCE). If a reliable source describes a person or an event in a particular way, Wikipedia will do the same. It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to sugar coat things and make it more palatable to those that don't like what they're reading. If there is too much "political propaganda full of hate" on Wikipedia, you're more than welcome to get your information from more reliable sources like Fox News, Truth social, etc. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Is what hate speech? Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)