Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene

Her mother?

It's never mentioned. Perhaps MTG emerged in full armour from her father's forehead like Athena from Zeus. 62.99.89.51 (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe we have been unable to find out anything about her? Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If you find anything in reliable sources that counters this mythological theory, please feel free to link it here and the article can always be updated. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Since I dropped a mention of this at the beginning of the month, I have since dug deeper and found that MTG's mother does exist and is alive and well. She is still not addressed or mentioned in reliable sources, so that is still a peculiar omission. But until RS mention either her or the omission itself, I don't feel comfortable disclosing discovery details, as she is not in and of herself a notable person. Zaathras (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist?

Can you let me know the citation for this? TaiLi363 (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you note the tiny numbers in brackets found throughout the article? Those are called citations. Zaathras (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

TaiLi363, Marjorie Taylor Greene#cite note-4. — ^Clyde!_Franklin! 03:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

And this is a perfect example of the rampant political bias on Wikipedia. Make a statement like this, then protect the page from any editing so no one can disagree. But this is not acceptable. If you want to say that she's been accused of being a conspiracy theorist, that is an accurate statement. But saying she is a conspiracy theorist as if it's an established fact like the sun rising in the East, is not neutral POV and that kind of statement would never be accepted on the page of any left leaning politician.100.15.73.17 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It is a fact. See the sources in the article, especially at Marjorie Taylor Greene#cite note-4. See her support of QAnon and "Jewish space lasers". Take your head out of the sand and drop your partisanship. This bitching and moaning without any reliable sources backing up your arguments will always go nowhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

You didn't read my comment. I am not disputing that many reputable sources have said she endorsed conspiracy theories. But which of those sources officially pronounce her a "conspiracy theorist"? Is there some defined and determinate ruling, like being placed on the sex offender registry? The way it reads is ridiculous. It's more accurate simply to say that she has endorsed conspiracy theories in the past. I realize this page was locked before the election because you wanted it to read as negatively as possible, but how about going back to NPOV now? On top of that, she no longer supports QAnon and has since retracted many of her previous claims: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/04/marjorie-taylor-greene-regret-qanon-conspiracy-claims.html 100.15.73.17 (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

This matter was settled several months ago. See Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene/Archive_3#Conspiracy_theorist_in_lede. Zaathras (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

At least the first two in the cite in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"Endorsing conspiracy theories" = "conspiracy theorist". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. wikipedia has gone completely downhill and is no longer worth its weight in skunk cabbage. Their heads are so far up their 4th point of contact (that's a paratrooper term for the uninformed) that they can see daylight out their mouths. The fact that she was re-elected negates the bullcrap espoused on this site. Cadillacmike (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Climate change

[3]

@RCraig09: According to WP:FRINGE, we need to balance fringe claims like this with mainstream refutations: While pseudoscience may, in some cases, be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views.

It is not a good idea to add stupid things people said to the article without refuting them. Knowledgeable people will conclude from what she said, "oh, Greene is an ignorant boob who does not understand what climate change actually is", but those are a minority. As it is, the quote serves as WP:PROFRINGE propaganda. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Greene is an ignorant boob who does not understand what climate change actually is, is the mainstream point-of-view of this particular individual. It is why "far-right conspiracy theorist" is an equal-footing descriptor of her in the lede, alongside politician and business owner. Zaathras (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Not a reason to have text violating WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I understand your concern, but WP:FRINGE is not particularly applicable here while WP:WIKIVOICE is. In the /* Political positions */ subsection we're talking about, we are not trying to present Greene's opinion as fact. We're presenting it—in context—as her position and not as fact, which is actually preferred under WP:WIKIVOICE. Nevertheless, your point is made, and I'm planning to add a sentence that her position overlooks the damage caused by climate change, which should make everyone here happy. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I had this discussion often, every time on the Talk page of another climate change denier. Instead of repeating the reasoning that eventuelly leads to deletion or addition of mainstream refuation, here are some links:

• Talk:Alexander Gorodnitsky#His views on climate change
• Talk:Thomas Sowell/Archive 4#Climate Change Section
• Talk:Roy Spencer (meteorologist)#Intelligent design (about climate change denial and ID)
• Talk:Benny Peiser#PROFRINGE article.

Can we please not do it again? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Current version is fine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Whoa; TL;DR. I'm actually OK with not adding a sentence re scientific consensus, because I think WP:WIKIVOICE governs this situation where it's clear we're merely presenting a subject's opinion or political position. In general, though, maybe you'd have faster results if you simply added a canned sentence of scientific consensus, rather than removing another editor's statement of subject's opinion and risking another long discussion. (I think we're OK now, here, in this instance.) —RCraig09 (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Biased article

This entire article is a piece of crap. Cadillacmike (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Get your heads out of your asses!

wiki will never get another cent from me ever until they stop this asinine radical left bullsh!t. Cadillacmike (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)