Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene

MTG on Wikipedia

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1624100664195395604

soibangla (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

So a paid editor, so who wants to own up to the wp:coi? Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The only proper response: lmao. Curbon7 (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

In more seriousness, it is more-than-likely one of the many non-ECP editors who post on this talk page "WhY aRe YoU cAlLiNg HeR fAr-RiGhT". The article is very well-monitored. The only editor who has made non-constructive edits recently is DaBabyindahouse, but they have a history of low-quality edits to various other topics, so I doubt its them. Curbon7 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

In the video, Lara Trump says that "it is all on purpose". No it isn't, the article summarizes the things that reliable sources have said about MTG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Then it is in fact on purpose, and the purpose is to reflect reality. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course, what has not happened is we are on notice there is a COI account out there, and will be that bit more vigilant and on the look out for it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Biased Politicization of Wikipedia

Without my wishing to challenge specific allegations about statements made by MTG, this article reads like a hit-job by a political opponent. It does NOT sound like an unbiased review of the politician's many statements, positions, and actions as a legislator or in other facets of her life. It relies on guilt-by-association to damn the Congresswoman. An unbiased view would abstain from such manipulation of readers.

Sourcing the claims from other media which may single out views it finds most abhorrent does not justify Wikipedia providing the same biased views. This article needs a major revision without bias -- while that may be difficult in these days of politicization of all aspects of life, it is necessary and overdue. Fredricwilliams (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This article needs a major revision which I strongly encourage you to initiate. Please proceed. soibangla (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

For the record, as the person who is credited as having gotten this to GA two years ago (though I simply was a mere copyeditor), the article has diminished in quality since then, but it has nothing to do with biases or whatnot, rather the insertion of WP:UNDUE or irrelevant content and a return to overquoting and WP:PROSELINE. Curbon7 (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

We can't act on vague assertions you need to tell us what is wrong and why so we can either fix the problem or decide it is not one. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• We decide what to cover based on what the sources cover. If you think we're including stuff that is marginal to MTG's biography, show it by comparing coverage of different aspects. But starting from the premise that you know what an "unbiased view" of MTG looks like, separate from the sources, isn't a workable way to approach the article because regardless of how well-intentioned you are, it would functionally be inserting your personal opinion into the article and using it to "correct" what the sources say, which isn't really how an encyclopedia works. We summarize what higher-quality sources say about MTG; if they say that she's done and said a lot of controversial things and indicate that that is a major aspect of her notability, then we have to reflect that. --Aquillion (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments on Teixeira

I think it's hard to argue that this brief sentence two-sentence summary regarding her comments on the leaker is undue, given the extensive coverage it has gotten. In addition to the sources in the article, see eg. [3][4][5] - note that these are not sources mentioning Greene in passing; they're entire articles devoted specifically to the position she took there. The wording could possibly be tweaked in various ways, but a sentence or two in the body noting that it's a position she took seems reasonable for something that got this level of coverage. EDIT: Since the main objection seems to have been to a lack of RS coverage, and there's better coverage now, I've restored a rewritten version - replacing the second sentence, which summarized the leaks in a way that didn't really matter for MTG's side of the story, with comments by Liz Cheney that have gotten substantial coverage, illustrating the significance of Greene's remarks. I've also replaced a few sources with higher-quality or more neutral ones that are more specifically about Greene. --Aquillion (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with the inclusion, including some of your sources. Huffpost is not suitable for contentious BLP topics, especially around politics. Not only that, this isn't an article about Teixeira, or Liz Cheney, and these edits are very much wandering into WP:COATRACK and WP:!HERE territory. There is already prose on 2023_Pentagon_document_leaks#United_States about the leak and MTG's commentary, so WP:ONUS aside, it's already covered in the right place (which is not here). My issue isn't with the number of sources, it's the depth of coverage, as the sources all largely say the same thing. MTG is a highly polarizing figure, so anything she says will gain attention, and pundits will jump all over it if it can drive engagement on their website. WP:NOTEVERYTHING is suitable for a BLP. Has anything of substance come from the tweet? Has she officially been sanctioned by her peers in Congress? Has any policy changed? Will this comment be relevant or notable in WP:10YEARTEST?

Please consider self-reverting, as I'm not going to get into an edit war today, could you perhaps seek consensus when in a dispute instead of piling on more controversy? Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I am less sure, yes it has gotten coverage. But so does every stupid thing she utters (which lets face it, is almost everything she says). The question here is what does it tell us we do not already know? What does it add to the article we need to say, we do not already say? Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about this per WP:NOTNEWS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

A sitting member of Congress actively defending a traitor, not just a one-off quip, far and away surpasses wp:notnews. Zaathras (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

At one point, historically, we used to refer to people that exposed the government and its representatives, especially when suspected of lying to the public, as "whistleblowers". But now since we've established this is contentious it should be removed until consensus is reached. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Not a relevant point, as no reliable sources characterize Jack Teixeira as a whistleblower, other than to deride right-wing attempts at it. Zaathras (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree. His apparent motivation was not to alert the public but to impress a small circle of online friends. TFD (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

So which is it, is he a traitor or a kid who just wanted to impress a small circle of online friends? Sounds like a nothing burger, hence why it shouldn't be included in this BLP. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The article should not be a collection of quotes. The edit should summarize what she posted and explain why it is significant. Is she for example defending treason, as Zaathras says? Then use a source that says she is facing that accusation. BTW, per WP:BLPCRIME, please do not accuse people of criminal offenses when they have not been convicted and in this case not even charged with the offense. In fact there is no evidence that could result in a charge of treason.

I agree its hard to assess the long-term significance of something that just happened and it is best to wait before adding current events to any article. TFD (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Particularly in the case of such a controversial figure who is now in a de facto leadership position in her party, it is important to cite her exact words, lest we descend into endless arguments about what she "actually" said. But if you'd like me to instead paraphrase what she said, it might go something like:

Greene accused Biden, a white Christian man, of persecution of white Christian men by arresting a white Christian man credibly accused of leaking sensitive national security information, constituting major espionage felonies that commonly result in long sentences in supermax prisons, while also falsely characterizing the man as a whistleblower who supposedly exposed that American military forces were in active combat with Russians in Ukraine, except they really weren't, and which Biden had supposedly concealed from the American people

Better? soibangla (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

MTG says a lot of things and we have to be NOTEVERYTHING and base inclusion on the weight of the sources. Are sources picking up her defense of Teixeira or are they treating it like a standard Trump tweet? I say it's too soon to include anything on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Well there's the NYT:

The far-right is trying to paint Jack Teixeira in a favorable light as an antiwar whistleblower ... Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, posted a tweet (using the name Jake instead of Jack) that said, "Jake Teixeira is white, male, christian, and antiwar. That makes him an enemy to the Biden regime."[6]

And WaPo:

In case Carlson's defenses of Teixeira were too subtle, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) offered her own take ... Greene frames Teixeira’s alleged actions as “[telling] the truth” about Ukraine because this allows her (as it allowed Carlson) to position him as a conscientious, ethical actor worthy of defense — and, moving one degree outward, to suggest that he’s only been subjected to arrest because he’s a White Christian man.[7]

Her statement, this time, is particularly reckless and dangerous, especially given her new role as a de facto party and congressional leader who has security clearance to sit on the Homeland Security committee and has at least twice presided over the House, and is sufficiently sourced to warrant a couple of sentences. It wouldn't be so notable if she were still just another member of congress or some bloviating commentator. soibangla (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

We avoid "endless arguments about what she "actually" said" by using reliable sources to summarize and interpret what she said. This may include partial quotes, if writers of secondary sources consider them important to include.

The approach of provide all the evidence and let the reader decide is antithetical to encyclopedic writing. Readers want to know how information is interpreted by mainstream sources and if they want to question them they can go to the sources and conduct their own research.

I notice that you added editorialization to your description when you called Biden "a white Christian man." Your implication is that it is absurd for Biden to be anti-white and anti-Christian because he is white and Christian. But commentary should always be implicit and sourced. TFD (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

So, apart from my "editoralization" on a Talk page to illustrate a point, would you prefer a paraphrasing of what she said similar to what I wrote, or something you might suggest, rather than her actual words? Based on what many have hollered in many venues in recent years, which only those living off the grid in the woods can be unaware of, can there be any dispute that she is referencing a supposed war against white Christian men in this case? And in the context of a man who just happens to be a white Christian man but which is entirely irrelevant to what he is accused of doing? Does that help to understand just how incendiary her remarks are? I welcome your proposed alternative language, though I hope to avoid this discussion henceforth. soibangla (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not arguing that her comments were not incendiary, just that all content must be properly sourced and phrased according to policy and guidelines. If you don't like the rules, get them changed and don't assume other editors have partisan reasons for following them.

Incidentally, your ''WaPo'' source is an analysis, hence not rs, so I will use the ''NYT'' article: "Like others on the far right, Greene portrayed John Teireira, who was charged with leaking sensitive Department of Defense documents, as a whistleblower. She tweeted: he "is white, male, christian, and antiwar. That makes him an enemy to the Biden regime.""

One of the reasons for "no synthesis" is that we don't get into sophomoric arguments, such as whether or not it makes sense to describe a white male Christian as anti-white etc. A lot of editors I have come across say that the Proud Boys cannot be racist because their leader is black. Do you buy that argument? Of course Biden isn't anti-white or anti-Christian, but that's an irrational argument. TFD (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I stopped reading at If you don't like the rules because I sensed this discussion might be going this way, which I seek to avoid and I will now bow out. I believe my edit complied with policy. soibangla (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• your ''WaPo'' source is an analysis, hence not rs - hold on, wait, what? "Analysis" is part of the purpose of secondary WP:RSes, and secondary WP:RSes that provide interpretation and analysis are vital to covering complex subjects in the article voice - see WP:SECONDARY. A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. We rely on the analysis of high-quality WP:RSes to indicate what primary sources mean; provided such analysis comes from a high-quality secondary source and there's no indication that any sources of comparable quality contest it, the conclusions are properly treated as facts and stated as such in the article voice. It's absurd to suggest (as you seem to be) that all analysis is automatically opinion - if that were the case we'd barely be able to write articles at all, especially for subjects like history or sociology (where large swaths of any article are going to cover mainstream interpretation, analysis, and synthesis on historical documents in order to present an overarching conclusion of what those things mean.) Saying "this analysis is too new / isn't widely-supported enough / isn't from a good enough source / is contested by X and therefore we have to treat it as opinion" would at least be a defensible argument, even if I might disagree, but "this isn't a WP:RS because it's analysis" is nonsense. Producing interpretation and analysis that we can (sometimes) put in the article voice the entire point of a secondary source. By your interpretation no source would ever allow us to summarize what a quote means in the article voice, because any source making such a statement would be performing analysis or synthesis and therefore impermissible. (Or is your point that the Washington Post, specifically, uses the "analysis" label in an idiosyncratic way to indicate opinion? If this has been discussed in the past, I've forgotten, but granted my memory isn't always perfect - certainly if it's true, it ought to be on their WP:RSP entry, since it would be extremely unusual. Certainly I wouldn't treat an "analysis" label as meaning "opinion" for the reasons I've outlined above.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  See News organizations: editorials and analysis in news media are "are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Incidentally, the author of the "analysis" is described as a "national columnist," so yes it is an opinion piece. I do not think that arguments about whether or not this is a good policy are constructive. TFD (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Are sources picking up her defense of Teixeira or are they treating it like a standard Trump tweet - well, I mean, the article has six sources from high-quality WP:RSes, each of them articles devoted entirely to this statement (again, not passing mentions of it, but articles that are entirely about it), including three covering the quote itself and three more dedicated to Liz Cheney's response. I think that Cheney's response and the coverage of it, in particular, indicates its significance - when you have a statement getting entire articles devoted to it, and then the response to that statement getting entire articles devoted to it, I think it's difficult to argue that it's just a random tweet. Two bare sentences summarizing what she said and the reaction to it don't seem undue to me in that context. But if you don't feel that that's enough sources covering it, or you if you feel that there's some issue with the ones we're using currently, indicate the issue more specifically - there's a lot of coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

MTG says lots of stupid things. This is just one more. As to Teixeira being a "traitor", legally he's no such thing until or if he's convicted of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• She is a gaffe-a-minute personality, yes, but the coverage of her specific comments here have received significant attention. Lindsey Graham has singled her out specifically for criticism on this, though. Zaathras (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NOTEVERYTHING, again, these all seem like things that are better suited in a Reactions section on the page covering the leak itself, which I've already pointed out exists. We don't know if these exchanges will have any significant relevance in even a year, let alone 5 or 10. As many other editors here have pointed out, this article is in bad shape and there's no reason for us to let it get worse.

  Recently AOC had an ethics complaint filed against her and a confrontation with LOTT that garnered multiple RS covering the situation. Would you argue for inclusion of that on her BLP or no? Someone made a good argument here, Balancing aspects says, "a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news."

  As I mentioned above, if this goes anywhere, whether it be sanctions or censure, then I'd agree to its inclusion. Until then, it's pretty clear there is no consensus for the inclusion and any mention should be dropped from the article. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Whataboutism will not be engaged. Zaathras (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, how about the rest of the argument then? I'd also encourage you to tread carefully, per WP:ASPERSIONS. It's also worth noting that the article you linked give legitimate reasons why one might point out arguments made in similar situations. Consider "Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking)." Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually the complaint against AOC received very little attention in reliable sources relative to her overall coverage. It might have received a lot of attention in right-wing news outlets, but most of them are not reliable sources. TFD (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd categorize The Independent, LGBTQ Nation, or The Hill as right-wing (which all covered the AOC situation). I digress though, the same situation applies here. In relation to the overall coverage that could have made the news, in reality you have only a handful of sources largely repeating the same thing and syndicating the same coverage. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I said very little. For high profile people like her, one would expect ongoing coverage in major U.S. networks and prestigious newspapers. If you added in everything that had been mentioned in only one or a handful of reliable sources, this article would run into hundreds of pages. TFD (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeing consensus here for the inclusion of this coverage, so how do the other editors who believe it should be included want to proceed? Remove it or should we take this to BLP/N and/or RFC? Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Remove it as lacking weight for inclusion. If it goes anywhere, which at this point is unlikely, and major media run with it, we can reconsider inclusion. TFD (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)