Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene - Wikipedia
4 people in discussion
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, 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. |
| 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 page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
Taylor-Greene’s Veteran Section was Removed. Please re-add:
Veterans
The PACT ACT which expanded VA benefits to veterans exposed to toxic chemicals during their military service, received a "nay" from Taylor-Greene[1] Regarding cannabis, despite lobbying from VSOs such as the DAV,[2] Taylor-Greene also voted against 2022 MORE Act.[3] Twillisjr (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Twillisjr (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
References
- She has opposed many things, what makes this any more due than any of the others? Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
One would expect a right wing politician to support the forces and ex-servicemen and women. The fact that that she voted against benefits for those service people who have suffered their job seems to me therefore seems remarkable. Maybe the conservative urge to save public money beats this in her mind. I pas no comment on the cannabis point.Spinney Hill (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- As I understand it most of the GOP voted against it, it does not seem that remarkable. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- You cannot say it is remarkable because her vote fails to support veterans. That's something that requires a reliable source. TFD (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok that swings the argument your waySpinney Hill (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Slatersteven are you volunteering to add it to an article such as: Republican Party (United States)? Twillisjr (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- No I am saying do not add it here. Slatersteven (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's been over a year since this arbitration remedy was applied, it's election year, and given the edit history it seems that 1RR consensus required arbitration remedy has had significant chilling effects on this articles editorial activity. Would replacing such restrictions with BRD or 3RR enforcements be more appropriate? Is it normal for restrictive arbitration remedies to remain indefinitely on BLPs? Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- There doesn't appear to be 1RR on this page? There's a "don't re-revert without consensus on the talk page", which I think is more than apt given the contentious nature of the article and the previous issues that've risen with it. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Sorry, you're correct, after looking at the arbitration discussion it's clear to me now that there's a difference. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Why remove it? Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I believe I mentioned some reasoning above, page edit activity has been reduced significantly since the introduction of the restrictions, and it's still unclear to me as to whether such restrictions remaining indefinitely are the norm. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Well as it has seen a reduction, its means its working as intended, that is not a reason to remove it, and it not being usual is also not really a very good reason (also there are other pages where this is also the case, any way). Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I don't necessarily believe reducing the editorial activity on a BLP is a good thing, or requiring lengthy consensus gaining discussions being required for every change that someone happens to disagree with (which, fwiw, violates the spirit of WP:ONUS). However, I haven't tested this theory, I believe this article has a lot of WP:TRIVIA and should be cleaned up, but with such restrictions in place what is stopping someone from just reverting the change and invoking the remedy? Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- It was imposed to stop edit warring, I see no reason to assume it will not start up again if it is removed or weakened, she still remains highly controversial. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I don't necessarily believe reducing the editorial activity on a BLP is a good thing, or requiring lengthy consensus gaining discussions being required for every change that someone happens to disagree with (which, fwiw, violates the spirit of WP:ONUS). However, I haven't tested this theory, I believe this article has a lot of WP:TRIVIA and should be cleaned up, but with such restrictions in place what is stopping someone from just reverting the change and invoking the remedy? Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Well as it has seen a reduction, its means its working as intended, that is not a reason to remove it, and it not being usual is also not really a very good reason (also there are other pages where this is also the case, any way). Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I believe I mentioned some reasoning above, page edit activity has been reduced significantly since the introduction of the restrictions, and it's still unclear to me as to whether such restrictions remaining indefinitely are the norm. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jeppiz @Slatersteven @Ser! Pinging relevant parties.
It does not matter if her being far-right is "well sourced"; it should not be in the first sentence. I have read a lot of politician's articles and I have never seen their political leaning in the first sentence. Barack Obama and Donald Trump's pages don't call them centrists in the first sentence. There is no reason of labelling her as far-right in the first-sentence unless you would like to discredit her immediately, which is against Wikipedia policy. Alexysun (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I thought the consensus was that we do not call her far-right, but just described as far-right. But it has been a while. Slatersteven (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- If there is a consensus, it should be easy to find on this talk page or its archives. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Special:Diff/1214563816 was (reinstated?) in March 2024 by @Ser!. I don't recall there ever being a formal RfC, but at this point, I'm of the opinion that putting labels like "far-left" or "far-right" in the opening sentence of BLPs is almost no different than asserting someone is a Communist or a Nazi. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- The "far-right" label has no less than eleven reliable sources, and frankly you could find dozens, if not hundreds, more as well. Or alternatively, just read the article. I am not a massive fan of labelling people as "far-right" or "far-left", but with a small minority of people you simply have to call a spade a spade. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I have to agree with you here; as far as I can tell, Greene has never publicly contested this label either. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- You'd be correct that there was no RfC held (though there were separate ones on "conspiracy theorist" and "extremist conspiracy theories"), but the great deal of established editors responding to edit requests demanding its removal formed a pretty strong consensus for it. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- KC, There have been millions of communists and Nazis over the years. Those adjectives exist for the purpose of applying them to their associated objects. × SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- The "far-right" label has no less than eleven reliable sources, and frankly you could find dozens, if not hundreds, more as well. Or alternatively, just read the article. I am not a massive fan of labelling people as "far-right" or "far-left", but with a small minority of people you simply have to call a spade a spade. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- When has anyone called Obama or Trump a "centrist"? Why do you assume that using a well-sourced label is "discrediting"? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Donald Trump and Barack Obama are notable for the office they held. MTG is notable for the political positions she espouses, those being far-right ones, and that being a descriptor that's near universally used in talking about her in reliable sources. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- In order to put it in the lead, there is a requirement not only to show sources, but to show that is how she is typically described in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
MTG is best known for being a far-right politician, and we have tons of reliable sources describing her as far-right. Outside of the US, at least, MTG is only known for her far-right politics. Jeppiz (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- The biggest issue I have with modern news outlets punting around the term far-right is that it means something entirely different in modern context than it has historically. I don't consider MTG a Nazi, but the captioned image on the above wiki-linked article has people literally holding a Nazi flag, a Confederate flag and a Gadsden flag, all of which represent vastly different political movements across the past 250 years (and only one of which I agree with, and that'd be the latter). Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Let's take this subtext from Far-right_politics#United_States as an example, it's really difficult for me to find examples of MTG espousing some of the more extreme rhetorics represented in this text. However, RS says she's far-right, so I guess she is? Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Good point. What shall be done then? Alexysun (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply