Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene/Archive 28

Protection
, this is a response to your post on my talk. I added full protection, following a request for semi-protection (writing from memory) on RfPP, because the reverting seemed to be a content dispute between 86.22.82.121, Randompointofview, and KidAd, about whether material was being repeated and where to place it. That is, it didn't look like vandalism or disruption from an IP. Are you saying I was wrong about that? SarahSV (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Without picking apart whether it is a content dispute or something else, even if it is a content dispute, consider it in the light of BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. 86.22.82.121 boldly made a change, KidAd reverted, 86.22.82.121 never took it to the Talk page, but continued to boldly make changes and then resorted to edit warring. Fortuitously, the initiating editor is an IP, so semi-protection should be enough, if not more than enough. Full protection unnecessarily locks all non-admins out of editing. Nurg (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nurg, we're not supposed to lock IPs out just because they're IPs. The edits have to be vandalism or in some other way disruptive (e.g. vandalism, COI, PAID, or similarly troubling). If it's a legitimate content dispute, full protection is appropriate. The three editors should open up a discussion. SarahSV (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please direct me to the specific points in the relevant policies about content dispute. I am finding this heavy protection quite disturbing, and wondering if there is a policy change I haven't caught up with. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought this might be quickly remedied, but it hasn't, so I have delved into it further. 86.22.82.121 breached the Edit warring. Please unprotect the article and apply whatever measures are justified against 86.22.82.121. I see they have been warned for vandalism, though that is not what they did – they were edit warring. Nurg (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're right that the IP reverted more than the others, so I've reduced to semi. SarahSV (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. You asked about the policy. See WP:SEMI: "Semi-protection should be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes." The question here is to what extent it was a valid content dispute. Anyway, I don't want to argue the point. Just leaving you the link for future reference. SarahSV (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

CharlesShirley's removals
Does this Fox News article support the statements "Greene supports outlawing abortion" and "She opposes any form of mandatory mask-wearing, compulsory vaccination or lockdowns in response to the pandemic. She described mask-wearing "oppressive" on Twitter, prompting a response from Anthony Fauci who described Greene's stance as "disturbing"."? removed these statements I added on the grounds that they are "clearly POV" and are "redundant, breathless descriptions". My view is that I am faithfully representing the content of the Fox News source. (Note: I had no intention to edit-war with CharlesShirley; for some reason VisualEditor failed to capture the edit conflict and simply overwrote initial edits.) feminist (talk) &#124; free Hong Kong 17:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I edited the first sentence to state: Greene opposes abortion. There is no need to add "outlawing abortion".CharlesShirley (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no need to add "outlawing abortion". Why not? Opposing abortion (i.e. "wants to see less abortion but not necessarily criminalize it") is clearly a starkly different position from wanting to outlaw abortion. And what about her statements on mask-wearing and vaccination, why do you think these should be removed? feminist (talk) &#124; free Hong Kong 18:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article explicitly refers to outlawing abortion. Charles Shirley's opinion as to what is "needed" is irrelevant and is the wrong basis for determining content. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021
"far right" is not a great journalistic description. it is judgmental. are there politicians described as far-left? I didn't think so. "conservative" is a less normative description. 74.68.96.15 (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Far Right" is the consensus of Reliable Sources news and informational coverage regarding Greene. Trying to whitewash the description is inappropriate. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What you or any other editor thinks isn't relevant. (And you're factually wrong.) -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts, self interview disavows her view as a conspiracy theorist, but @IHateAccounts insists on leaving on the page intro as a conspiracy theorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkowal43 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Self-interviews are obviously irrelevant. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)