Misplaced Pages

Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:34, 29 June 2022 view sourceYopienso (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,909 edits →Discussion: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Revision as of 08:02, 29 June 2022 view source Yopienso (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,909 edits →Conspiracy theorist in lede: Strike "fewer than half." Looks like I miscounted. All but 2 do.Next edit →
Line 112: Line 112:
:]: ''All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.'' :]: ''All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.''
:]: ''A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even ''while'' presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.'' :]: ''A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even ''while'' presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.''
:]: ''Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a ''cult'', an individual a ''racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter'', or a sexual practice a ''perversion'' – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.'' '''Fewer than half of the given in the discussion below directly call her a conspiracy theorist.''' (Titles don't count.) They are more oblique, like TFD suggests, saying she believes or promotes them. (Maybe other terminology, too--the notes I took when I looked through them all yesterday are inadequate, and I've used up my free articles on some.) ] (]) 21:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) :]: ''Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a ''cult'', an individual a ''racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter'', or a sexual practice a ''perversion'' – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.'' <s>'''Fewer than half of the given in the discussion below directly call her a conspiracy theorist.''' (Titles don't count.) They are more oblique, like TFD suggests, saying she believes or promotes them. (Maybe other terminology, too--the notes I took when I looked through them all yesterday are inadequate, and I've used up my free articles on some.)</s>] (]) 21:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', it has substantial coverage in secondary sources to the point where it's plainly a major aspect of her notability, and more than sufficient to satisfy any questions about due weight or BLP. Reflecting the sources ''is'' neutral writing; trying to write around it because the article's subject (or people who agree with her) might object is ] and is contrary to BLP's instructions for handling sensitive but well-cited material. --] (]) 21:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC) *'''Yes''', it has substantial coverage in secondary sources to the point where it's plainly a major aspect of her notability, and more than sufficient to satisfy any questions about due weight or BLP. Reflecting the sources ''is'' neutral writing; trying to write around it because the article's subject (or people who agree with her) might object is ] and is contrary to BLP's instructions for handling sensitive but well-cited material. --] (]) 21:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
*'''No''', she does not formulate the conspiracies, and where they've come up, they are a sideshow that some in the news media chase after. Greene is not primarily thought of as a conspiracy theorist, she is primarily labeled as such by media sympathetic to her opponents. By now, she is considered notable for things she got done and participated in and for her political positions, not for the conspiracy related topics some of the news media has focused on. That said, most readers probably expect wikipedia to slant in a manner similar to , so it may not hurt her reputation if this comes out as a "yes" decision. --] (]) 05:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC) *'''No''', she does not formulate the conspiracies, and where they've come up, they are a sideshow that some in the news media chase after. Greene is not primarily thought of as a conspiracy theorist, she is primarily labeled as such by media sympathetic to her opponents. By now, she is considered notable for things she got done and participated in and for her political positions, not for the conspiracy related topics some of the news media has focused on. That said, most readers probably expect wikipedia to slant in a manner similar to , so it may not hurt her reputation if this comes out as a "yes" decision. --] (]) 05:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:02, 29 June 2022

Good articlesMarjorie Taylor Greene has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 29, 2021. (Reviewed version).
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marjorie Taylor Greene article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q: Why does the article call Greene "far-right"? Consensus is that multiple, independent, reliable sources describe Greene as "far-right". These include the following:
Sources
Q: Why does the article call Greene a "conspiracy theorist"? Consensus is that multiple, independent, reliable sources describe Greene as an advocate or promoter of a "conspiracy theory" or a "conspiracy theorist". See RFC closed with consensus to keep These include the following:
Sources
Full coverage From colleagues
  • Garvey, Declan (August 14, 2020). "Marjorie Greene Is Already Causing Problems for the GOP". The Dispatch. Retrieved June 27, 2022. 'Greene could have a devastating impact on the Republican party at-large,' a top House GOP aide texted The Dispatch. 'It's one thing to have fringe members who represent very ideological districts. It's quite another to have a member who is an avowed conspiracy theorist and traffics in hateful rhetoric that offends the vast majority of Americans.'
  • Proctor, Stephen (June 28, 2021). "Republican congressman says Marjorie Taylor Greene 'doesn't do anything' but 'try to be famous'". CNN Newsroom With Pamela Brown. Yahoo! Entertainment. Retrieved June 27, 2022. Kinzinger said 'She really doesn't do anything but travel the country and attack people, but, you know — come up with crazy conspiracy theories, and try to be famous.'
  • Wise, Alana (February 1, 2021). "McConnell Slams Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Conspiracies As 'Loony Lies'". NPR. Retrieved June 27, 2022. 'Loony lies and conspiracy theories are cancer for the Republican Party and our country. Somebody who's suggested that perhaps no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that horrifying school shootings were pre-staged, and that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr.'s airplane is not living in reality,' McConnell said in a short statement Monday night that doesn't directly cite by name.
Q: Why does the article call Greene's ideas "extremist"? See a closed discussion where there was a consensus to call her ideas "extremist."
Sources
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconWomen in Red: #1day1woman (2020)
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconGeorgia (U.S. state) Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state)
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconU.S. Congress High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is about one (or many) person(s).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWomen
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWomen in Business Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

          Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Section sizes
Section size for Marjorie Taylor Greene (51 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 37,638 37,638
Early life and education 4,552 4,552
Early career 12,000 12,000
U.S. House of Representatives 37 78,241
Elections 19 45,556
2020 102 40,517
Primary election 15,441 15,441
Runoff election 5,679 5,679
General election 14,048 14,048
Endorsements 5,247 5,247
2022 3,172 3,172
2024 1,848 1,848
Tenure 27,263 27,263
Committee assignments 3,037 3,037
Caucus memberships 2,348 2,348
Political positions 980 178,526
Abortion 4,072 4,072
COVID-19 27,703 27,703
2020 presidential election 2,844 2,844
Foreign policy 13,999 13,999
Opioid epidemic in the United States 704 704
Gun rights 5,350 5,350
Infrastructure 3,563 3,563
LGBT rights 11,510 11,510
Race and religion 17,783 17,783
Climate change and weather events 6,416 6,416
Evolution 1,194 1,194
Secession 3,869 3,869
Political violence and extremism 1,162 4,871
Rhetoric involving killing of opponents 3,709 3,709
Advocacy based on conspiracy theories 6,317 35,813
Pizzagate and QAnon 9,021 9,021
False flag claims 5,459 5,459
Shootings 7,714 7,714
Georgia Guidestones bombing 842 842
White genocide conspiracy theory 2,005 2,005
Camp Fire conspiracy theory 4,455 4,455
Catholic Church leadership 2,457 2,457
Responses 18 35,398
Within Congress 9,411 15,346
Removal from House Committee assignments 5,389 5,389
House Speaker removal efforts 546 546
Outside Congress 9,100 20,034
Twitter 8,808 8,808
2022 primary ballot challenges 2,126 2,126
In popular culture 6,990 6,990
Personal life 6,090 6,090
See also 104 104
Explanatory notes 38 38
References 30 30
External links 3,272 3,272
Total 327,481 327,481

Edit request - "Big Lie" link

I see the article is locked, but there is one change I think should be made in the lead section: the phrase "Greene has repeatedly and falsely claimed that Trump won the election in a landslide victory that was stolen from him" currently links to a section of the Big Lie page about Trump. Personally I think it would make more sense to link it to either Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election or Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud. Those latter two articles are about the claims and events themselves; the section of the "Big Lie" article is more about the use of that phrase when talking about the claims.

Also, more subjectively - this feels like Misplaced Pages referring to the election claims as "the Big Lie" in its own voice, and I feel ambivalent about that. It is certainly true that Trump's claims were a lie that is big, but as the Big Lie article discusses, the common use of that phrase since its origin has been in reference to the Holocaust. I know that since 2020 some people have also used it to refer to Trump's claims (as discussed in that section), but personally I think doing so frequently can be seen as insensitive by some, because it can seem to imply that Trump's actions were equally as bad as the Holocaust. So for that reason I don't think linking to it this way in the MTG article feels neutral. GranChi (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The sentence in question, A supporter of Trump's efforts to overturn his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election, Greene has repeatedly and falsely claimed that Trump won the election in a landslide victory that was stolen from him, does already link to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. It might be better to swap out the Big Lie with the other link, but I'm not sure and look for the input of others. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist in lede

Has there been an RFC on the conspiracy theorist title in the lede? I see this discussion Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene/Archive_2#Conspiracy_theorist. Seems strange to call a sitting member of congress a conspiracy theorist before her title of congresswoman. I do see she is running for re-election, so if she is not re-elected then maybe the title would be fine. Are there any other sitting members of government (any country) that are referred to as conspiracy theorists? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

We do not have to have RFC's unless there is a clear disagreement that can't be solved (so by all means launch one). I also think the problem is that even before she was actually elected she was called a Conspiracy theorist. However, she is not a member of the government, if anything she is the opposition (but that is also not strictly accurate). Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I dont think that distinction that you make (part of govt or part of opposition) exists in US politics and even if it did it wouldn't justify the weight issue. Your point that she was referred to as conspiracy theorist prior to election could be valid. I am more wondering if this weight issue is subject of local consensus or broader consensus, seems the former. Is that right? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: See the FAQ please. ––FormalDude talk 16:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Her mother?

Why does the post include her father’s name, but not her mother’s? 174.199.39.150 (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Is her mother mentioned in any WP:RS? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
How odd, after a bit of searching I can find no mention of her mother or really much any discussion of her childhood. Usually famous people at some point have had an expose or profile written about them, but virtually every story begins with her HS graduation. Zaathras (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist in lede

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Is the title "conspiracy theorist" in the lede WP:DUE? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Survey

  • Yep. From Jewish space lasers to Pizzagate to the beliefs on globalist/Democratic pedophile sex slave rings to not believing a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Just about every tinfoil conspiracy out there in the last 2 decades, you can find this woman slurping it up and regurgitating to her followers. Zaathras (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • No I would prefer the phrasing "expresses many conspiracy theories" for people who do so and "conspiracy theorist" for someone whose notability derives from conspiracism, such as David Icke and Alex Jones. We should take the example of news sources that almost never refer to her as a conspiracy theorist in articles about her in the news. In this case, we should write with an impartial tone. TFD (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes the "political zines" that are cited in this article are all reliable sources, and they explicitly name her as a conspiracy theorist. If you hover over the cite bundle, many of the sources are from before she was even elected, meaning her notability was initially derived from the wide coverage of her conspiracy theories. I disdain the use of politically-charged identifiers in the first sentence of an article (I have organized the adjustment of political identifiers, particularly "far-right", in numerous articles, including even in articles like Roy Moore), but in this case, it is an integral part of her persona and thus is valid for use as a key identifier. This is written quite clearly in as impartial a tone you can get with such a subject, but impartiality is a two-way road: not including something that has been so widely covered is just as impartial as including something that is minimally covered; with regards to WP:DUE, there are times where you just have to call a spade a spade. Curbon7 (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Either, and before you criticize me for not deciding I'll say I spent 15 minutes thinking about this so I'm going to say something, dangit! It seems kind of silly to call it out in the first sentence when the very next paragraph dives into the crazy stuff, but she's in a weird job (politics, fundraising) where her brand identity (that is, right wing conspiracies, and her supporters would agree) is her career almost as much as "lawmaker". It's interesting to compare Alex Jones because he's claimed he has a mask, which raises the question, is it a mask to become Batman or Bruce Wayne? (or Clark Kent, in which case it's a terrible mask because it's f'ing obviously Superman). Greene hasn't given any public indication of a double life, however. Also, "conspiracy theorist" is also not always seen as derogatory to the alt-right in my observation – they'll just ask you to note that many conspiracy theories turn out to be true! SamuelRiv (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • No Prefer wording proposed by the The Four Deuces. ~ HAL333 03:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    So, The Four Deuces believes that "conspiracy theorist" should be reserved "for someone whose notability derives from conspiracism". Since you vote is per his entry, could you (and/or he) entertain us with what MTG's notoriety is derived from, if not conspiracism? Zaathras (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    Notoriety is not a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline, notability is. MTG's notability is derived from her occupation as a politician. Initially she met the criterion of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage," which is when the article was created as a stub. Later she became a member of Congress, which guarantees notability. If she had not run for Congress, you probably would never have heard of her. TFD (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    This article existed before she was elected, so, MTG's notability is derived from her occupation as a politician is incorrect. She was notable as the first Q-endorsing candidate. Can you point to a single instance of actual Congressional action that has garnered coverage for Rep. Greene? No? Her sponsored legislation is all political theatrics ("Fire Fauci Act", expulsion of Maxine Waters, impeachment of Joe Biden, not genuine governance. Every waking moment of this person's existence, and the reliable sources that cover it, is spent on the promotion of conspiracy theories. Zaathras (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    In fact this article was created when MTG entered the primary. IOW notability was established by WP:NPOL. She had no notability before she entered the race. And her political positions could also be described as conservative, racist, pro-gun, or Islamophobic, so why aren't you suggesting we say MTG is "a conservative, racist, two amendment activist, Islamobphobe and conspiracy theorist?" What additional information does it convey to readers to say she is a conspiracy theorist rather than someone who promotes conspiracy theories? This is an encyclopedia, not a Democratic blog, and should be written in a neutral tone. Bear in mind that if we keep a neutral tone, the article becomes more persuasive. Coming off as obviously biased against MTG, whether it is justified or not, makes readers question the article's fairness. Hence, you are detracting from the description you want to present. Incidentally, do you think that disliking Maxime Waters or Joe Biden or supporting gun rights makes someone a conspiracy theorist? TFD (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    The first part is simplistic Whataboutism, and not worth addressing further. To the second, Greene's beliefs in regards to Maxine Waters and Joe Biden are drenched in conspiracy theories, not mere "dislike". The effort to expel Waters is rooted in beliefs that pro-Floyd protests incite violence, and for Biden, the articles of impeachment were based on the debunked conspiracies regarding his son Hunter and the Ukraine. Zaathras (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    You said the article was created before MTG became a politician and I showed your claim was false. I see more than a bit of irony that you are using a false claim to support calling someone else a conspiracy theorist. There's an old saying that should guide us, "Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It." IOW don't write about MTG in the tone she would use to write about other people. It brings us down to her level. TFD (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    No, I said "This article existed before she was elected". Nice try. Zaathras (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    I dont see how the date of article creation is salient to this discussion, except maybe tangentially to discuss the history. Harvey Weinstein was well known as a producer that made many famous movies (aka his movies were more famous than him), but his article today is a whole different situation and the focus is mostly is about his personal behavior (his notoriety today probably overshadows many of the movies he made). I point to this as a clear example of how a BLP changes over time as the source of notability of the article subject changes over time. As another point, once someone gets involved in US national politics, then the notability of that in many cases will overshadow their earlier notability (what you are referring to at the time of the article creation). Donald Trump is an example here, he was a somewhat notable rich guy with big hair and a TV show, after he got elected however he became a global figure. In summary, things change, and at wikipedia we follow the news, and nothing is ever set in stone. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    Agree with you that it is tangential for the same reasons and will add that had Greene lost the election, this article would probably have been deleted by now.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. It's one of her most notable traits and is backed by myriad RS. It's so bad that among politicians she's the Alex Jones of political conspiracy theorists. Not many come close. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes She was one before being elected, and she remains one. It is in fact (apart from being an elected representative) her most notable feature (and arguably it is equal to her position, she would get far less coverage without the conspiracy BS). In fact (arguably) she would still be notable if she had lost, based upon this. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. As others have mentioned, she is slightly more notable as a conspiracy theorist than a representative. And, like modifiers such as 'American' or 'politician', her current occupation is listed lastly. It would be wonky to put 'conspiracy theorist' after 'state representative'. SWinxy (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    The word I am looking for here is 'adjective'. Calling her a politician is first. Her actual elected position is last. SWinxy (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes As noted above above it's her notable trait as referenced in multiple RS. As a result, she has global notability/notoriety. She's only a first term congresswoman. The reason she has notability across the world is because of her crackpot theories. I'm in the UK and I would be hard pressed to name any other members of the US House of Representatives (Pelosi, McCarthy maybe?). But I can name her and she is known not because she is a member of congress - she's only been in Congress 2 years - or any other aspect of her political career but only because of bizarre tin foil hat views. DeCausa (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    This has been the longest two years ever. LOL Missvain (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes - I cannot think of anything she's known for better aside from getting elected to office, threatening people, getting banned from Twitter, and liking Donald Trump. She's a conspiracy theorist. Think about all the other hundreds of congresspeople - this one stands out for one primary reason and did so even when she was running for office because she was into QAnon. Keep it in the lede. Missvain (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • No Misplaced Pages should not use bias terms. It is not a site for opinion, but rather it is a site for facts. Anyone can easily be labeled a conspiracy theorist, but as she does not identify as a conspiracy theorist herself, it should be left out of the article. More over, it is not a title, but instead a slur. 26 June 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B028:2875:10E8:7884:F04A:AA51 (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC) — 2600:1014:B028:2875:10E8:7884:F04A:AA51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2600:1014:B028:2875:10E8:7884:F04A:AA51 (UTC).
    Hi! One of Misplaced Pages's core policies is that reliably secondary sources make up the content here. Living persons are given some amount of control over their page, be it with some self-published material, or with requests for changes. But when reliable, secondary sources publish these descriptions, especially when words are contested over, exist in numerous enough quantities, it becomes unavoidable to not describe someone as such. Many figures and organizations that have descriptions that are contested must have those reliable secondary sources to establish that yes this is how it should be described. Not describing oneself as something doesn't mean you aren't that something. SWinxy (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • No, her noterietay is not from believing in and/or discussing a conspiracy theory. This page was not published until she launched her campaign to be a representative. Because of this I do not believe this title should be used in the lede and not in the first sentence either. Grahaml35 (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    This is not a supportable assertion. When a previously-unknown person runs for a the House or Senate, the general procedure is to create a redirect of the person's name to the seat they are running for, and they are by Misplaced Pages standards, non-notable. The redirect appears to have been deleted to make way for a new article on 6-10-2020, i.e. 5 months before the election. Literally from the very first edit, Ms. Greene was already making waves for having a violent campaign ad taken down by Facebook. Within 7 days, the article already contained info on Greene's conspiracy-laden QAnon support, as well as antisemitism and Islamophobia. Seven days in. Zaathras (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    You are asserting a "general procedure", can you please provide examples. I think we are not talking about someone running for congress, we are talking about sitting congresswoman, no? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    I am responding to and debunking the assertion that MTG's notability derived from simply being a candidate for and later a holder of a federal office. It is not usual practice to create an article for a new candidate who has not even won a primary yet, so to pass WP:N, there must be other circumstances that make the subject notable. Those "other circumstances" were present in the literal first iteration of this article, and the full coverage of her conspiracy theory nature was present in the article not a week later. MTG's notability, as the Misplaced Pages defines it, rests squarely on her being a prominent conspiracy theorist, not on being a mere congresswoman. Zaathras (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    OK, just to confirm your "general procedure" argument/opinion that lacks any factual backing and/or evidence, is that correct? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    You do not seem to be understanding anything I have said, given your lack of response to any salient point, so, there really is no further point to this tangent. Zaathras (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. There is overwhelming objective evidence that the subject has received significant lasting attention from independent sources that supports the label of "conspiracy theorist". ––FormalDude talk 06:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes - Her notability was established as such even before she became a sworn-in politician. It is the primary thing she is known for on a wider basis, and is reliably sourced. It completely overshadows her legislative status... she's the conspiracy theorist who got elected, not an elected official who happens to espouse conspiracy theories. It's central to her notability, and so should be in the first sentence. Fieari (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • No, and definitely not within the first sentence of the lede. Its far too soon (under RECENTISM) to be using these terms in subjective voice and that early in the lede, they are not objective descriptions of who she is in that first sentence. They are terms that may be appropriate later in the lede, but there should be a build-up of why those terms apply rather than just presenting them, otherwise this makes the tone of this article look like an attack article and fails on tone and impartiality. (The fact you have to stuff that many citations next to the phrase shows why it is a problem there). TFD is on the right path here. --Masem (t) 12:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    I am confused by the claim that this is recentism. She was a conspiracy theorist before she was a politician, that's effectively what she ran on. ― Tartan357  02:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Include, came here from Jimbo Wales' talkpage. MTG is a politician in name only, she serves on no committees (stripped), has proposed no impactful legislation, and doesn't even seem to ever hold townhall-like meets with constituents. 100% of her noteworthyness stems from being a conspiracy theorist, and the label "the QAnon supporter has been applies to her from the very beginning. See Marjorie Taylor Greene, a QAnon Supporter, Wins House Primary in Georgia from August 2020. ValarianB (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Responding to "politician in name only": her jail report was outstanding. She has a large list of proposed and co-sponsored legislation. She has proposed legislation that others have co-sponsored, including but not limited to, the Fire Fauci Act, Protect America First Act, Brian A. Terry Memorial Eliminate the ATF Act, To award three Congressional Gold Medals..., and No Funding for Terrorists Act--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank-you for reinforcing the point that she is not an actual politician. None of those are genuine legislation, virtually all political theater that died in committee. If Congress has a version of Misplaced Pages's WP:POINT, MTG would be clapped in irons. ValarianB (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I would be surprised if, years from now, at least one of her proposed bills was not enacted in some way, shape or form. Successful bills often hang around for years. They may eventually get combined with something else, maybe in reworded form. Even if she is not reelected, her bills' co-sponsors might be. If she is re-elected, and her party has a majority, she has reportedly been promised great committee assignments. And her financial position looks strong. The article should reflect that she is an actual politician.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The crystal ball-gazing about what-ifs is not relevant here. As for the article reflecting that she is an actual politician, it already does that. Do note that "conspiracy theorist" is 3rd in order of importance in the first line, after "politician" and "businesswoman", even though that one is largely fictitious. Zaathras (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Don't need a crystal ball to know that bills usually take a long time, and that cosponsors help move things along. I will move it after "Republican Party" and see if anyone reverts me.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
When a bill dies in committee, that is that. It doesn't stay around like Pinocchio, waiting and hoping someday to be a real boy. In this imagined future when Rep. Greene is restored to committees and such, she is free to reintroduce new bills with the same goals, but they be just that - new. Zaathras (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Not in conjunction with the current second paragraph. The current version has the entire second paragraph about Greene supporting conspiracy theories. I agree that per WP:RS, discussion of this is warranted. However, the combination of that and adding it also to the first paragraph becomes WP:UNDUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • No, even though, in my view, she is a conspiracy theorist. Here's why we should follow TFD's suggestion:
WP:Neutral: All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
WP:IMPARTIAL: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
WP:CONTENTIOUS: Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Fewer than half of the list of reliable sources given in the discussion below directly call her a conspiracy theorist. (Titles don't count.) They are more oblique, like TFD suggests, saying she believes or promotes them. (Maybe other terminology, too--the notes I took when I looked through them all yesterday are inadequate, and I've used up my free articles on some.)YoPienso (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, it has substantial coverage in secondary sources to the point where it's plainly a major aspect of her notability, and more than sufficient to satisfy any questions about due weight or BLP. Reflecting the sources is neutral writing; trying to write around it because the article's subject (or people who agree with her) might object is WP:FALSEBALANCE and is contrary to BLP's instructions for handling sensitive but well-cited material. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • No, she does not formulate the conspiracies, and where they've come up, they are a sideshow that some in the news media chase after. Greene is not primarily thought of as a conspiracy theorist, she is primarily labeled as such by media sympathetic to her opponents. By now, she is considered notable for things she got done and participated in and for her political positions, not for the conspiracy related topics some of the news media has focused on. That said, most readers probably expect wikipedia to slant in a manner similar to John Stossel's article on the topic, so it may not hurt her reputation if this comes out as a "yes" decision. --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    That is not a valid or relevant observation. Conspiracy theorists derive their notoriety from the spreading of conspiracy theories, them not being the originator is irrelevant. ValarianB (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Yes. I'm sensitive to concerns about unduly charged terminology and mildly sympathetic to the argument that she is not an originator of conspiracy theories, but I am ultimately persuaded by the definition of 'conspiracy theorist' in Merriam-Webster: "a person who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory". Creation of conspiracies a là Alex Jones, David Icke, etc. is not necessary per the RS's noted here and the dictionary definition of the term to be labeled a conspiracy theorist. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 19:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Include. No policy or guideline or wikilawyering can overrule the fundamental principle that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, and we are beholden to report what those sources say. Gamaliel (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Include It's all she was when she ran and got elected, and sources regularly introduce her that way. ― Tartan357  02:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

There exists this Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene/FAQ that lists the sources. The term is also cite-bundled with a number of sources. The question is really is it WP:DUE to use this title in the lede, and if it should be in the first sentence, even before her title as a congresswoman? Will we use this title for every BLP that contains a dozen or so sources from political-zines? First time I have seen this sort of thing on an apparent member of congress. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably because this is the first time a member of congress has been primarily thought of as a conspiracy theorist. Hopefully, she’s a rarity. DeCausa (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Here we can see according to Conspiracy_theory#Etymology_and_usage that the the usage is "always derogatory". However, WP:BLPSTYLE says "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language". Thus yes, I agree it would be great if we didn't use that for elected officials no matter how undesirable they are. Probably this could extend towards all BLPs in general. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
You inadvertently omitted the end of that sentence from BLPSTYLE:”… unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources” Bingo! DeCausa (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about that. It says "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Please note: We aren't discussing whether to say Greene promotes conspiracy theories or not; we're discussing only how to say that. The second paragraph of the lead removes all possibilities of creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Even this highly critical piece from CNN doesn't label her a conspiracy theorist. YoPienso (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Exactly, we are discussing how and the subject of this RFC is the first sentence in the lede, not the second paragraph. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm talking about the lede. The question is whether we label Green as a conspiracy theorist, or if we say she promotes conspiracy theories. I was clarifying since some editors seemed not to understand. YoPienso (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa:: In fact, you know Greene's a conspiracy theorist only because she's in Congress. Before she ran for office, even though she was already a conspiracy theorist, she wasn't widely known. YoPienso (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Yopienso: actually, I knew of her from when she ran for Congress. (Probably, from my perspective in the UK, the only congressional candidate I've ever been aware of.) But that's not the point. The question is whether it's WP:DUE to describe her as a conspiracy theorist who serves in Congress. And it is: per the WP:RS she's the conspiracy theorist who managed to get elected, not the elected person who, by the way, is a conspiracy theorist. DeCausa (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Your argument to call her a conspiracy theorist doesn't hold up. You wrote, "But I can name her and she is known not because she is a member of congress . . " And yet you never heard of her before she ran for Congress. It was the running for Congress and getting elected that put her in the public eye. YoPienso (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The best joke

Is this entire article. Regarding popular culture and news dumping, see WP:10YT. Decide whether you want to organize controversies chronologically or categorically and then stick to it – it's an utter mess. But of course then second someone starts to clean it up it's reverted, because god forbid someone deletes the historic one-off jokes by Trevor Noah and Jimmy Kimmel. I suppose we wouldn't know how "notorious" she is if we didn't know Joy Behar made fun of her.

Take pop culture in particular: look at the articles for literally every past politician – say Janet Reno, whose section is even more restrained than I would choose, because Will Ferrel's portrayal became emblematic of changing 90s attitudes toward sexism. But it's a fair editorial choice because the article is about Reno and not one comedian or one show. Take criticism where you can get it, because most people avoid editing these articles like the plague. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I have seen that elsewhere with "in popular culture" sections of biographical articles. Who wants to read that much ephemera of people being nasty?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Categories: