What's so special about Marjorie Taylor Green?

[Kraken]

The point seemingly missed by this batshit thread.....

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... =8&t=13518

.....is that It's actually quite rare to find a Wikipedia biography of a right wing politician that applies a pejorative label like "far right".

But thats what Wikipedia does to Marjorie Taylor Green.....

[MTG] is an American far-right[2] politician

....straight out the gate.

As the talk page helpfully explains (not)......

Q: Why does the article call Greene "far-right"?
Consensus is that multiple, independent, reliable sources describe Greene as "far-right".

You only need to look at the Wikipedia article on Right wing populism to see a whole host of biographies that avoid such labelling, despite there being ample reliable sources. Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, all comfortably fit the label right wing populist. Nobody in the UK would deny it. But it isn't applied. In the wider world, people like Jair Bolsonaro and Viktor Orbán similarly aren't labelled.

It's not a sexism issue at this level of power either. You won't find it very hard to find reliable sources that call the current Italian Prime Minister a fascist or far right, but she isn't labelled. Similarly the extremely powerful French politician Marine Le Pen. The hedging your bets sentence "Le Pen has been widely described as being far-right on the political spectrum." provided a little later in the introduction is a huge understatement. If she isn't far right, nobody is. I'd say it was a universal description among reliable sources. Certainly as common as calling MTG far right.

Among MTG's contemporaries as "Trumpists", I see that Josh Hawley has no label. Both Lauren Boebert (a girl) and Matt Gaetz (a boy) are given Le Pen style qualified labelling.

So what's so special about Marjorie that Wikipedia bestows the honour to her of being one click away from a bunch of Nazi / confederate flag toting whackjobs in the first sentence of her Wikipedia biography?

Is Wikipedia suggesting far right politics now cannot merely be about extreme hate, it also has to include woo woo?

And if so, is this ultimate proof it is actually possible to "own the libs"?

[ericbarbour]

Say what you like about the Vig, his comment about Hanlon's razor fits her perfectly. "Far right" does not describe her as ideally as "far nuts".

[Kraken]

If Vigilant wasn't such a pussy who takes his cues from Uncle Zoloft, or just a straight up far left wokie himself, I think we all know what he would say about threads like this.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... lor_Greene

The stupid, it burns.

There's Dennis Brown, a Wikipedia Administrator and Wikipediocracy poster, seemingly unable to figure out the difference between his ass and his elbow, but speaking with such authority.

Where is the evidence MJT's view of what far right means, is in any way in alignment with what Wikipedia editors are so clearly trying to convey with that wikilink? Not that this should affect the NPOV, but it does seem like they seem to think her opinion has a bearing on a BLP. Absurd.

The vast majority of respondents in that BLP/N thread, Dennis included, are openly admitting what is blindingly obvious. There is a clear eyed and deeply hateful intention here on the part of Wikipedians to imply/suggest/infer that MJT is a believer in the Confederacy and Nazi Germany.

It doesn't matter a jot what the "reliable sources" are saying.

And rather obviously, none of those sources are actually saying MJT is a believer in the Confederacy and Nazi Germany, because if they were, that woudn't just be in the article, the introduction would be making it very very clear.

And it remains highly pertinent here. What's so special about MJT? Plenty of other far right politicians aren't being called far right by Wikipedia. Seems obvious to me why that is.....

The far-right politics article itself offers a range of far right groups, of which confederate fans and Nazis are only a portion. Her support for such things as the White genocide theory makes the descriptor seem not unreasonable. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

She's got this Wikipedia assigned identity because she's freely embraced the identity of Woo, and violence against political opponents. She's not saying she's a Nazi or Confederate, but she is one, and in the only way that made those movements what they are - collective insanity - as opposed to what defines the far more common incarnation of the far right in actual politics.

Which begs the question, if she is such a perfect example of what it means to be a far right in the modern era, why isn't she mentioned once in Wikipedia's article on the far right?

Is America really ashamed to admit that when it comes to the rest of the world, they have outdone them in the capacity for screwing up democracy so bad you have forces of insanity holding high office?

You couldn't just have normal far right politicians. Ordinary racists. Ordinary nationalists. Stuff easily explained by evolution. Stuff that will inevitably emerge in times of strife.

They had to reanimate the Nazis and Confederates. Like a sick sequel. The mainstay of Crap Hollywood.

America is Woo Central.

Cheese in a can.

Wikipedia as knowledge.

Guns as freedom.

Religion as politics.

Dennis Brown as authority.

Planet of the fucking Apes.

At a certain point, the fact Wikipediocracy aren't in the business of studying the apes, they literally are the apes, becomes rather obvious to the master race in this world. The humans.