Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene

Leaving unsourced claim here in case anyone wants to deal with it later

"but [Handel] was defeated for a full term in 2018. Greene thus became the first Republican woman elected to a full House term from Georgia."

Curbon7 was unable to find a source, but the claim seems entirely plausible. Therefore, I'll leave this here in case anyone else wants to tackle it or in case I want to come back to it later. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It could also be OR, so I wouldn't necessarily leave it. 04:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

If you mean on the talk page, NO we should not leave it here. the talk page is not a place to put unsourced speculation just because it can't go in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Having thought about it, even though it's trivially easy to prove (calling it "entirely plausible" was an understatement that I made while I was tired; it's provably the case that the first was Handel,[1], provably the case that Greene was the second Republican woman to represent Georgia in the House (proof by exhaustion), and provably the case that Handel never served a full term (once again by exhaustion)), I'm going to keep it out of the article, just because it's such a trivial aspect of her election. If anything, I'm probably also going to remove the statement about becoming the "second Republican woman to represent Georgia in the House", just because 1) no RSes I can find mention that, let alone signify that as a notable aspect of her election, 2) since no RSes bring this up, I'd have to use sources to clunkily prove a negative, i.e. that there were no Republican women representing the House between Handel and Greene, and 3) it once again just has so many qualifiers ("second"; "Republican"; "woman"; "Georgia"; "House") that it isn't even worth it unless there's an RS specifically saying it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Intro

"Greene has promoted numerous far-right, white supremacist, and antisemitic conspiracy theories including the white genocide conspiracy theory, QAnon, and Pizzagate, as well as other disproven conspiracy theories, such as false flag mass shootings, the Clinton body count, and 9/11 conspiracy theories." I question the use of "disproven" in this sentence in the introduction - it implies that the first three conspiracies somehow still have some ground (and have yet to be "disproved") to stand on, and differ substantially from the latter three, which is obviously not the case. Esmost ^talk 00:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

My reading of it is that all are disproven. I would agree with you if there was an extra comma: "... as well as other, disproven conspiracy theories"... But the way it's written now, both the first three and the others are disproven. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your reading. I find the term disproven to be redundant and it implies that there could be conspiracy theories that have or could be proved to be true. TFD (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I think disproven needs to be moved to the front.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of an proven conspiracy theory? TFD (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Ahh I see, I think we should say it, so no one can think we are saying they are not disproven. I think we should always say it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I Googled "Conspiracy Theory proven true" to get a possibly more useful statement and found this Michael Shermer (skeptic, teaching at Chapman University) video. At 15:00 into the video, there's a great graphic that enumerates the percentage of people who believe various such theories: [3] i.e., "Obama is the Anti-Christ," 13%, "chemtrails," 5% (the number may still include Kelli Ward, the chairman of the Arizona Republican Party). Woo, woo! Activist (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Usage of the word “Far right”

Is she actually far right?, we don’t call economically far right and socially far right people, ideas, political ideologies and movements far right that often, she’s not arguing for unlimited laissez-faire capitalism, an ethnostate or other actually far right things, she’s just a pro trump conservative who spouts disproven conspiracy theories with an anti Semitic flair, and the far left Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin was anti Semitic, so anti semitism is not an inherently right wing idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godzillasizedemu (talk • contribs) 00:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Godzillasizedemu, In the article, hover over the number 3 right next to the word far-right. Curbon7 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I condemn this article for omitting her extramarital sex-affairs

What's going on with omitting her extramarital sex-experiments with a "tantric guru" and a gym-manager? Why would Wikipedia cover this up for her? Has she even DENIED these episodes of cheating? Everyone in the world seems to know about them (except Wikipedia). I have searched this article for the text-strings "extra" and "marital" (which would hit "extra-marital" or "extramarital"), "cheat" (which would hit "cheating" or "cheated"), "tantric", "guru", "adulte" (which would hit "adultery" or "adulterous"), "fidel" (which would hit "infidelity") and every other way of finding your details on her extra-marital adulterous sex-cheating unGodly anti-Christian bed-hopping infidelity with various non-spouse sex-partners outside the bounds of marriage, but I can't find them no matter what I do. Her sex-life is relevant and encyclopedic, absolutely and beyond all doubt, because of its hypocrisy in light of what she advocates in law-making. Compare this to your extensive descriptions of Lindsey Graham's sex-life (or conspicuous absence of available details thereon) in the WikiParticle about HIM. The absence of the sex-life details in this article makes you smell bad in the public's nose. You're jeopardizing Wikipedia's credibility.2603:7000:9906:A91C:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson