Jump to content

Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zaiisao (talk | contribs) at 06:13, 5 May 2021 (→‎Conspiracy theorist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biased defamatory first line

"Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974) is an American politician, businesswoman, and far-right[2] conspiracy theorist[3] [...]."

The page is starting with a lie in the first sentence. She is not far-right. Marjorie Taylor Greene has never suggested nor stated she is far-right, and nobody on her political side says she is far-right. The only sources are opinion pieces making defamatory accusations to attack her, or just straight up quoting "Marjorie Taylor Greene has supported this far-right conspiracy theory" as one of the sources for why she is far-right. This is clear and obvious bias. If we used this to become the base of fact, then we should add dementia to Joe Biden's page because right-wing media says that he has dementia. Must be true if the opposing side says so, correct? Stop your biased trash. Wikipedia is meant to be an unbiased place where facts are valued more than opinion, but someone wrote as if opinions of her opposition matters more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadFacts (talk • contribs) 19:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ChadFacts, it's bias to say she's a "far right conspiracy theorist" because reliable sources have described her as supporting far-right conspiracy theories? Am I understanding your point correctly? We reflect what reliable sources cover. No reliable sources say Joe Biden has dementia. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say it is a reliable source that a Democratic congresswoman is being defamatory towards Marjorie Taylor Greene? That's the first source. She said it, so that must mean she is far-right. Second source: only says far-right in the title and doesn't even state in the piece that Marjorie Taylor Greene is far-right nor does it explain why it uses far-right in the title. Third source doesn't mention Marjorie Taylor Greene, and the only mention of far-right is in the subtitle as an eye catcher and in AOC who plainly isn't a reliable source, nor does her statement of far-right target Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically in the article. The fourth doesn't even link to the article, you might want to fix that should you plan on continuing to platform baseless defamation. Having found the article, it does not state why she is far-right. It just states that she is. It also doesn't state whether the piece is an opinion or analysis, but it does state opinions within it which leads me to suspect it is an opinion piece. And the fifth one, I don't know anything about that situation, so I can't comment on it. But I did explain why in my view 4/5 of the sources are entirely invalid for either the reason of simply not being unbiased/non-opinion or for not even stating that she is far-right at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadFacts (talk • contribs) 20:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources, the use of "far-right" is by the news agencies, not the lawmakers mentioned in the story. —C.Fred (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred, that's even worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadFacts (talk • contribs) 21:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worse for Greene's image, not for reliable sourcing. —C.Fred (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred, worse for both Greene's image, and for reliable sourcing in fact. Because you're suggesting they're crossing the territory from simply quoting politicians to making opinions without backing them. And then Wikipedia editors use those opinions citing them as reliable sources, which couldn't be further from the truth. That's one of the issues with Wikipedia. You use reliable sources from A) sources that aren't reliable B) opinions which also falls into the first. I can't imagine a world where we see opinions from journalists as reliable sources for an unbiased source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadFacts (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Far from it. I'm suggesting that the newspapers and other media sources did their due diligence and are reporting their findings: i.e., she's called far-right because, per the evidence, she is. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She is, as you said, per the evidence, not. None of these sources quoted ever explain how she is far-right aside from her supporting far-right conspiracy theories. If that were how you become far-right, I'd estimate the entire US population to be half far-left and half far-right. They did not do their due diligence. That's a bold claim, so I'd like to see the evidence of a source compiling reasons and going by the unbiased dictionary definition of far-right to explain how she is far-right. Opinion articles do not count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadFacts (talk • contribs) 22:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with The Independent, NBC News, and the Washington Post, WP:RSN is that way. I wish you luck. —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred, thank you for proving my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadFacts (talk • contribs) 22:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) FreeMediaKid! 07:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:soap, this is not a place to discuss the flaws or otherwise of the Republican party, or the Democratic party. If you wish to challenge sources take it to wp:rsn. Nor is this the place to discuss other articles, their talk pages are the place for that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I intended my comment to be about this article, but because I also made it partially about me, I understand why it would be interpreted otherwise. It is a habit I have in which I visit talk pages of political articles, find recurring requests whose suggested edits would make the articles worse, and take the opportunity to openly try to understand why these edit requests keep reappearing, but as I said, I may have gone too far in making the subject about me. I also tend to describe my own ideology as a strategy to make my argument seem legitimate. Admittedly, I have yet to see that working. As far as my editing patterns are concerned, I am not driven by any sort of agenda, other than to call out dirtbags. This does not imply that I look for every silly thing someone has said to imply a false conclusion, which would be uncouth and unexpected, possibly even libelous. Rather, it means exposing a dirtbag's vices and making it their fault. Anyway, I will try not to make my comments about me under the guise of their being about the article subjects as my excuse. I have self-redacted my above comment. FreeMediaKid! 21:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2021

I am requesting that the partisan derisive opinions that this subject is a conspiracy theorist and Far-right be removed. It is the contributor's opinion and not a fact. one should not use these pages as or not you agree or disagree with her politics one should not be permitted to use these pages as a battlefield! It is absolutely unfair and mean-spirited. It must be changed. DonnaLK (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC) DonnaLK (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see all the talk page comments about this above.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debate with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

@Calton: I'm confused as to why you reverted the text, you gave about a half sentence. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable story in itself to include in her tenure– also, if you'd like to accuse me of acting trying to turn wp into greene's publicity agency, might i suggest bringing any proof that i have a bias. If anything, the story reflects rather badly on Greene. I saw the story, found reliable sources, and determined the story constitutes inclusion. It seems to be a significant part of her tenure, since the twitter response was covered by The Daily Dot, reliable for internet culture, and The Independent generally reliable (according to WP:RSP). A previous editor included The Hill which is also WP:RSP greenlit, and there's coverage from The Daily Beast– also WP:RSP greenlit. There is significant enough coverage here. What's your issue? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it's significant and is backed up by sources. This is the second time @Calton: has reverted an edit about Greene's debate with Ocasio-Cortez, and he still hasn't reasonably justified why. I don't understand why he keeps saying "WP isn't Greene's publicity agency" when all these outlets are basically admonishing Greene. The text written on her article was fairly non-partisan as well. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
has reverted an edit about Greene's debate with Ocasio-Cortez
There is no debate -- none -- except in Greene's imagination.
yes, my mistake. doesn't show non-notability though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... he still hasn't resonably [sic] justified why.
Wrong. It's not my job to justify anything here: it's YOUR job to justify why this minor publicity stunt to gin up attention deserves mention. Notice of some people gabbing on Twitter is NOT "significant coverage". --Calton | Talk 04:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have justified it. We have in-depth coverage from multiple reliable independent sources. Now, it's your turn to show why: a. the coverage does not justify inclusion or b. the coverage is compromised or otherwise unreliable or otherwise ineligible to show verifiability. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, if all these news organizations are writing articles directly about it, it's not really trivial. ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail..." which is what all these sources do. It's not just people "gabbing on Twitter" but Business Insider, The Independent, and multiple other reliable news sources. Also, real mature to point out a typo. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Calton, Tuckerlieberman, and Why? I Ask: That really seems subjective to what you consider important. If "Some people gabbing on twitter" was unimportant, WP:WikiProject Internet culture could probably just stuff itself down the tubes now. We have coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources talking about it. What else do you want? Also, yeah, come on with the typo. We're all on the same team here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was tagged, so I will chime in. I added a couple sentences on 22 April that may have kicked off this discussion. This article has a section called "Political positions" (of Marjorie Taylor Greene) and it currently lists 7 topics including "Abortion," "Gun rights," etc. There's nothing on the environment or climate change. That is a significant topic, so it is a significant omission from the article, and it would be helpful to know where the representative stands. I added a section called "Green New Deal" because that is an important piece of pending legislation and Greene has emphasized her stance against it. I wrote two sentences: "Greene opposes the climate change legislation known as the 'Green New Deal.' In April 2021, she challenged Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the bill's sponsors, to a debate." I thought this was neutral phrasing. She does oppose the legislation, and the specific way in which she demonstrated her opposition was by challenging the bill's sponsor to a debate. I'm not sure what sounds like "publicity." For the record, my politics do not align with Greene's at all. I certainly don't mean to promote her. I simply think it would be helpful for readers to have some information about her stance on climate change. @Calton: in your opinion, what would be a more neutral way of discussing her environmental positions? Tuckerlieberman (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was more talking about my addition, but i tagged you here because yours was similarly reverted. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sourcing provided is totally adequate for inclusion of this content. It remains unclear why it should be excluded in the first place, and PROMO does not seem at all relevant here. I support inclusion. Freelance-frank (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to include everything, why is this significant? After all is not this actually her job?Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed her job, as a Congressional lawmaker, to have opinions and take actions on U.S. environmental policy. That is why it is significant when she expresses an opinion on a significant piece of legislation. Since her position on abortion, gun rights, etc. are included, why not her position on U.S. response to climate change? I don't understand why environmental policy is treated differently from every other kind of policy? Tuckerlieberman (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, her opinion, is, not an offer to do her job...Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the consensus of four editors versus two (one is presumed), and inactivity for two days, I'm reverting @Calton's reversion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus changes, I'm happy to entertain another reversion, but as of now, it seems we're good. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for inclusion, 2 to 4 is not a clear enough consensus. We may need wider input, I suggest an RFC.Slatersteven (talk)
On second thought, agreed. I'll open an RfC. This should be fun, no? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 11:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's done. It's 5:51am and I am so far beyond tired– sorry about the mess. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 12:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Inclusion of proposed debate with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

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.
RfC withdrawn– consensus seems to be that the coverage found is relatively minor. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 12:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article contain a section on Greene's repeated unanswered requests for a debate with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 11:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed text:

On April 16, 2021, Greene challenged New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to a debate on the Green New Deal.[1] When Ocasio-Cortez did not respond, Greene released a video on Twitter six days later saying that "If she chickens out, then she shows exactly who she really is, a scared little girl that is pretty stupid and doesn’t know anything about the economy or economics".[2][3] Greene posted another tweet later that day claiming that Ocasio-Cortez had agreed to a debate since she had read "all 14 pages" of the Green New Deal.[4] The tweet included a picture of the two talking, with The Independent describing Ocasio-Cortez's face as "somewhat puzzled-looking".[3] The tweet was mocked on social media, with political commentators, journalists, and others joking that Greene had apparently not read the Green New Deal before, despite criticizing it frequently, and that Greene had made a deal of reading all 14 pages of the document.[2][5] Greene tweeted the next day that she had read the bill, calling it a "Communists manifesto".[5]

  • No. Without committee memberships, Greene has virtually no standing in Congress, and little effect on the legislative process. This is political theater, a news blip that is not a noteworthy event in MTGs life or political career, such as it is. I'd be fine with an "Environment" section under Political positions that contains a cited opposition to the green New Deal, as long as it is free of faux-debate nonsense. ValarianB (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. This is the same problem we run into with Alex Jones -- too many examples to list. If we included every incident where Greene performed a bit of political theater and a few sites covered it the article would be huge. We need to limit ourselves to those particular antics that get the most coverage in mainstream sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some of her tweets appearing here?Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

part of the proposed text. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 13:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Citations

References

  1. ^ "AOC ignores Marjorie Taylor Greene's incessant Twitter pleas for a public 'head to head'". The Independent. 2021-04-16. Retrieved 2021-04-24.
  2. ^ a b "Marjorie Taylor Greene Mocked for Challenging AOC to Debate". TheWrap. 2021-04-15. Retrieved 2021-04-29.
  3. ^ a b "Marjorie Taylor Greene calls AOC a 'stupid,' 'scared little girl' as she badgers her to debate Green New Deal". The Independent. 2021-04-23. Retrieved 2021-04-29.
  4. ^ Baragona, Justin (2021-04-22). "Marjorie Taylor Greene: I'll Schedule AOC Debate After I Read 'All 14 Pages' of Green New Deal". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2021-04-29.
  5. ^ a b "Marjorie Taylor Greene mocked for saying she needs time to read AOC's 14-page bill before debating her". The Daily Dot. 2021-04-22. Retrieved 2021-04-24.

Conspiracy theorist

Is there a consensus on when it is appropriate to refer to someone as a conspiracy theorist, or simply as someone who has promoted conspiracy theories? One can make a fair argument that MTG is at the same level in this regard as President Trump but his article does not refer to him as a conspiracy theorist, but simply as someone who has promoted conspiracy theories. So where is the line? I think there is less debate over the fact that it does make sense that the Alex Jones article refers to him as a conspiracy theorist.

I would as such propose the change of the article's first paragraph to:

"Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974) is a far-right American politician and businesswoman serving as the U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district. A member of the Republican Party and a staunch supporter of Donald Trump who has promoted conspiracy theories, Greene was elected to Congress in November 2020 and sworn into office on January 3, 2021."

-- zaiisao (talk | contribs) 07:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this argument some while ago but I was overruled on the basis that the sources showed that she was a theorist. I don't think the news articles do show this.The titles of some of them do, but headlines I believe are written by sub-editors rather than the reporters..A theorist is surely someone who invents a theory or develops a theory originally composed by somebody else. I believe in the Theory of Evolution but that does not make me an evolutionary theorist even if I write about Darwin.The theorists are Alfred Wallace, Charles Darwin and (probably) TH Huxley..I support your idea but I think your sentences should be :"Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974) is a far-right American politician and businesswoman serving as the U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district. who has promoted conspiracy theories. She is a member of the Republican Party and a staunch supporter of Donald Trump , Greene was elected to Congress in November 2020 and sworn into office on January 3, 2021." Incidentally I am not a supporter of Green,Trump or the Republican Party. I am a left leaning Englishman living in England with an interest in US politics. Spinney Hill (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this issue at length. and multiple times (see the archive).
conspiracy theorist
noun
UK /kənˈspɪr.ə.si ˌθɪə.rɪst/ US /kənˈspɪr.ə.si ˌθiː.ɚ.ɪst/
someone who believes in a conspiracy theory (= the idea that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people):
So yes she fits that definition.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait...what? You mean a creationist is not someone who created the universe, a royalist is not royalty, a satanist is not the devil, and a cultist is not a person who started a cult? Who knew? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we lay of the sark?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. Pointing out the incorrect definition didn't work the last time. I will, however, try to tone it down on pages you are editing in an attempt to annoy you less. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does not annoy me, but it makes it harder to say to others "this is not what talk pages are for" if I turn a blind eye when others do it. It's about consistency.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will ignore the previous four comments because they are unproductive to the conversation. I notice that the topic of whether MTG did or did not buy into conspiracy theories was debated, but I have not seen discussions on whether she should be described as "a far-right politician who has promoted conspiracy theories" versus "a far-right conspiracy theorist." From my view it makes sense that Alex Jones is described as a conspiracy theorist because it is his career to create and propagate conspiracy theories, but people like Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene are best described as politicians who have bought into and promoted conspiracy theorists. -- zaiisao (talk | contribs) 04:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is hyper-partisan editing that draws discredit on Wikipedia articles about U.S. politics. MTG is notable as a politician not as a conspiracy theorist. We don't say for example that Barack Obama is an African American or black politician or that Nancy Pelosi is an elderly politician. The way we arrange facts presents a narrative and we need to follow what reliable sources do, not provide emphasis in order to discredit subjects. TFD (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The most notable thing about Barack Obama is that he was the first black US president. The most notable thing about Nancy Pelosi is that she is speaker of the house. The most notable thing about Marjorie Taylor Greene is that she is a conspiracy theorist. We don't make these decisions. The sources do. Multiple reliable sources have extensive coverage about Obama being the first black US president and multiple reliable sources have extensive coverage about Marjorie Taylor Greene being a conspiracy theorist. Other things about Obama, such as the fact that he is he able to speak Indonesian fluently, are true, but not what he is known for. Likewise the fact that Nancy Pelosi is 81 years old is not what she is known for. Nor is it unusual; multiple members of congress are older, and the ironically named Don Young is 87.
If you don't like the fact that the most notable thing about Marjorie Taylor Greene is that she is a conspiracy theorist, go complain to CNN,[3] NPR,[4] The New York Times,[5] and MSNBC.[6]
Or you can just listen to Marjorie Taylor Greene's own words...[7] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you on the substance, but the words matter. Is Greene any more of a conspiracy than Donald Trump, and if yes, then how so? -- zaiisao (talk | contribs) 06:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene&oldid=1021529489"