Other talk page banners

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Women in Red: #1day1woman (2020) This 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 Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Georgia (U.S. state) Mid‑importance This 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 Wikipedia. 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)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) Mid This 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: Article requests : Crooked Creek (Georgia), Ed Defore Sports Complex, Audery Mill Creek, More (Georgia)... More (U.S.)... Assess : Rate articles from Unassessed Georgia (U.S. state) articles and Unknown-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles. Citing sources : Unreferenced Georgia (U.S. state) articles Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category. Geographical coordinates : more Georgia (U.S. state) articles missing geocoordinate data Infobox : Georgia (U.S. state) articles without infoboxes Map : Wikipedia requested maps in Georgia (U.S. state) Photo : Wikipedia requested photographs in Georgia (U.S. state) Stubs : Work on stubs in articles in Georgia (U.S. state) stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) radio station stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) road stubs and Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs. Other : *Deletion sorting: Please see the collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Georgia (U.S. state) - compiled by WikiProject Deletion sorting Help out with articles placed in Category:Georgia (U.S. state) articles needing attention Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Tag the talk pages of Georgia (U.S. state)-related articles with the {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)}} banner. Get Georgia (U.S. state) to a featured article quality standard Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. 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 United States: 20,000 Challenge Low‑importance This 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 20,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help! Women in Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: Rogers, Kaleigh (2021-03-03). "How Marjorie Taylor Greene Won, And Why Someone Like Her Can Win Again". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved 2021-03-08. Naughtie, Andrew (May 27, 2022). "Marjorie Taylor Greene is spending more on security than any other candidate, filings show". The Independent. Retrieved May 29, 2022.

The only reason I know her is for her position on Israel, including bring a bill against Israel. Yet it did not make the lead! Explain it in baby English. Inayity (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

THis is a recent issue, and not the reason she was elected. Nor is it even close to being what she is most notable for. Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

two months later, I'd say her very public break with republicans on a number of issues should probably be mentioned — jonas (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a Marjorie Taylor Greene video interview and she stated that the proposed extension of Obamacare subsidies would affect her children, thus not supporting the extension of Obamacare subsidies would alienate her from her children. I cannot find the video online. The clip was in a commentary video from a WP:RS

"In October 2025, Greene broke with her party over the federal government shutdown.^[1] The disagreement was over a proposed extension of Obamacare subsidies.^[2]"

Piñanana (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the Epstein files not mentioned once in the article, when Greene has been very public and breaking with her own party over wanting to force a vote to release them? — jonas (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because untill it actually has some kind of effect (as in she resigns or votes against her own party over it) it tells us nothing. Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas that moment has arrived.--FeralOink (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes clearly the Epstein files need to be mentioned in this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has it, when she actialy resigns, yes it will have had an effect. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Especially in the wake of the recent conflict with Donald Trump, I think it would be worth adding that she is a far-right populist politican. Here are some sources that describe her has both populist and far-right [3], [4], [5]. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for providing those reliable sources! Qwerty123M (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help but notice on Wikipedia we like to place descriptors like "far-right" into certain politician's infoboxes. I've never seen a left-wing politician be called "left-wing," much less "far-left" in their infobox. All these terms are vague by nature and kinda unhelpful, and when we only apply them to people on the right in creates a sort of othering that is not in the spirit of NPOV. R. G. Checkers ^talk 06:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. I have found that efforts to remedy are widely resisted by Wikipedia editors.--FeralOink (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The overcites about her being a conspiracy theorist and far-right are excessive. I'm not suggesting those descriptions are untrue, merely that (given the article size of OVER 370,000 bytes when 100,000 is considered large!) that these should be trimmed back.

As for the extremist description, I do wonder if there is any other (now former) member of Congress who is described by Wikipedia using that adjective? If not, is Wikipedia claiming that MTG is the MOST or even the ONLY member of Congress who is "extremist"? --FeralOink (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I agree that usually 1-2 sources are enough to suffice, and that sources are not always needed in the lead section. Although to remove or change it from such a highly visible article, I suggest you find consensus first.

For the part where you ask I do wonder if there is any other (now former) member of Congress who is described by Wikipedia using that adjective? that falls under WP:OTHER. Instead, if you think it's false, I encourage you to either find reliable sources that state otherwise, or show how it's inconsistent with the body of the article. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please information about Marjorie Taylor Greene insider trading? Disclaimer777cc (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable source has information that might be added to the article? Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given MTG's break with Trump and her recent NYT profile in which she breaks with her former views, what do you all think about maybe changing the whole "far-right/populist" and "conspiracy theorist" angle in the lead to something more moderate, or removing it altogether? I'm glad the "far-right" label was removed from its prominent position (which was a pet peeve of mine), but I still think some improvements and updates should be made. Open to any suggestions about this. wizzito | say hello! 15:09, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless RS state that she has changed her policy views, not just broken with Trump, the text regarding her current promotion of far-right views and conspiracy theories should remain. Funcrunch (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has she in fact stopped promoting conspiracy theories (such as the Epstein files)? 15:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm reading the NYT piece now. Her views on the left-right spectrum haven't changed and the author makes this clear. I have covered Greene, who is 51, extensively over the past five years, and it was evident during this recent visit that on one level nothing had changed. ... She arrived in Washington as one kind of misfit and departs as another, all while remaining more or less herself but also changing in ways that compelled even her detractors to give her a second look. None of this is normal, like the rest of the Trump era. What has changed is more about style, about being less combative. She continued to be faithful to Trump’s campaign promises. If anything, she said, her sin was to have regarded them as more than slogans. “That’s what I’m guilty of,” she told me. “That’s what made me, in the president’s words, a traitor — which was truly believing in Make America Great Again, which I perceive to be America First.” – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Getting towards the end, after her resignation announcement, And yet Greene was showing no sign of withdrawing from political life. She continued to post on social media about her concerns on immigration, Covid vaccines, foreign interventions and the prospect of stolen elections. So she's still got the conspiratorial views. And in the very last paragraph, about her break with Trump: But perhaps even to her own surprise, Greene was not that person any longer. “Everyone’s like, ‘She’s changed,’” Greene said to me. “I haven’t changed my views. But I’ve matured. I’ve developed depth.” – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marjorie-taylor-greene-rips-trumps-venezuela-attack-we-have-real-problems-here-at-home_n_695d1ba9e4b0c1bd90c5573b https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLhsJ1muvQ4 Neiyenz (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think her views on everything are needed. Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But being a Trump dissenter within the party, her views will make for good quotes on the page concerning the 3rd Jan 26 attack on Venezuela. If this keeps its wind, it might just end up being worth a mention here. We could wait. Neiyenz (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming she is, and not just disagrees with him over just one or two issues. Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's little to assume. She resigned and they have been publicly vocal in their mutual dissent. Neiyenz (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:HUFFPOLITICS, these sources are generally considered to be openly biased. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 18:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of RS that have covered this.[6][7][8][9] Whether we should include it or not, I don't have an opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]