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:

• Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

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.

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

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 Fram, Alan; Slodysko, Brian; Freking, Kevin (February 4, 2021). "Divided House officially removes Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from committees, punishing far-right provocateur for violent, racist rhetoric". Chicago Tribune. Associated Press. Archived from the original on June 21, 2021. Retrieved June 27, 2021. Diaz, Daniella; Grayer, Annie; Nobles, Ryan; LeBlanc, Paul (April 17, 2021). "Marjorie Taylor Greene launching 'America First' caucus pushing for 'Anglo-Saxon political tradition'". CNN. Archived from the original on June 16, 2021. Conservative Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is launching a new "America First" caucus, her office confirmed Friday, bringing together a group of far-right lawmakers known for their controversial rhetoric Woodward, Alex (January 29, 2021). "Cori Bush explains moving her office away from Marjorie Taylor Greene as GOP congresswoman slams 'Democrat mob'". The Independent. Retrieved February 1, 2021. Black congresswoman condemns far-right lawmaker's 'renewed, repeated antagonisation of the movement for Black lives' Bump, Philip (March 19, 2021). "The emerging far-right 'no' caucus in the House". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on March 20, 2021. Retrieved March 20, 2021. Sarlin, Benjy (January 14, 2021). "Some Democrats in Congress are worried their colleagues might kill them". NBC News. Archived from the original on May 27, 2021. Retrieved February 1, 2021. House members openly accuse far-right representatives of threatening their health and safety after the Capitol riot. Karni, Annie; Baker, Mike (February 1, 2021). "An emboldened extremist wing is flexing its power in a leaderless G.O.P.". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 15, 2021. Retrieved February 1, 2021. With the departure of former President Donald J. Trump, the G.O.P. has become a leaderless party, with past standard-bearers changing their voter registrations, luminaries like Senator Rob Portman of Ohio retiring, and far-right extremists like Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia building a brand on a web of dangerous conspiracy theories. Elliott, Josh K. (January 29, 2021). "'Jewish space laser' among wild hoaxes backed by GOP's Marjorie Taylor Greene". Global News. Archived from the original on June 21, 2021. Retrieved February 1, 2021. Greene was an active far-right conspiracy theorist before her election, and she has continued to push many of those beliefs, including the QAnon hoax. Gambino, Lauren (February 6, 2021). "Who is the Republican extremist Marjorie Taylor Greene?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on July 22, 2021. Retrieved August 1, 2021. Greene represents an ascending far-right movement within the Republican ranks… 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[1] These include the following: Sources Full coverage Judd, Alan (September 7, 2020). "Georgia's Marjorie Taylor Greene riding political fringe to Congress". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Chattanooga Times Free Press. Retrieved June 27, 2022. For the past three years, Greene has used a network of far-right websites and social media accounts to spread baseless, often absurd conspiracy theories that demonize Trump's political enemies while raising her profile among extremist groups. Strauss, Daniel (September 18, 2020). "QAnon conspiracy theorist to feel warm embrace of Republicans in Congress". The Guardian. Retrieved January 14, 2021. As she has run for Congress, Greene has continued to use social media such as Facebook and Twitter to spread conspiracy theories and boost the far right. Maclean, Dave (August 12, 2021). "Trump endorses QAnon supporter Marjorie Taylor Greene after Republican primary win". The Independent. London, England. Retrieved January 14, 2021. Donald Trump has endorsed QAnon conspiracy theorist Marjorie Taylor Greene.... Morin, Rebecca; Jackson, David; Brown, Matthew (September 18, 2020). "Twitter temporarily suspends account of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene". USA Today. Archived from the original on January 24, 2021. Retrieved January 24, 2021. Greene is a firebrand conspiracy theorist who has claimed the United States is experiencing an 'Islamic invasion into our government offices,' .... "Conspiracy theorist's apparent rise to Congress" (Video). CNN. Archived from the original on January 24, 2021. Retrieved January 24, 2021. Greene has left a trail of her own videos, Tweets, and social media posts that establish her as a bigoted anti-Islamic conspiracy theorist who recently also believed in the QAnon conspiracies. Zanona, Melanie; Mutnick, Ally; Bresnahan, John (August 13, 2020). "McCarthy faces QAnon squeeze". Politico. Retrieved January 24, 2021. The rise of Greene – an unapologetic QAnon conspiracy theorist who has made disparaging remarks about Jews, Blacks, and Muslims – is threatening to hurt the entire party.... Herbert, Geoff (January 21, 2021). "Georgia's Marjorie Taylor Greene files articles of impeachment against Biden". al.com. Retrieved January 24, 2021. The Trump loyalist and QAnon conspiracy theorist accused Biden of 'abuse of power' .... Bethea, Charles (October 9, 2020). "How the 'QAnon Candidate' Marjorie Taylor Greene Reached the Doorstep of Congress". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on October 9, 2020. Retrieved June 27, 2022. A spate of articles in the national media followed, all of them highlighting that a QAnon supporter was likely headed to Congress, at which point Greene made a few efforts to shed the conspiracist label. Kruse, Michael (February 25, 2021). "'Nobody Listened To Me': The Quest to Be MTG". Politico Magazine. Retrieved June 27, 2022. What she did was start in 2017 to create a new identity—as an anti-media, anti-Muslim, anti-trans, pro-gun, pro-wall, pro-Trump provocateur, columnist and conspiracist. 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. [GOP Representative Adam] 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,' [GOP Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell said in a short statement Monday night that doesn't directly cite [Greene] 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."[2] Sources "Marjorie Taylor Greene is spending more on security than any other candidate". The Independent. 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-09-05. "Meghan McCain calls Marjorie Taylor Greene "a freak" over Buttigieg remarks". Newsweek. 2022-03-27. Retrieved 2022-09-05. Cohen, Marshall. "Marjorie Taylor Greene testifies for more than 3 hours". CNN. Retrieved 2022-09-05. Tamkin, Emily (2021-02-05). "Why Republicans are standing by extremist Marjorie Taylor Greene". New Statesman. Retrieved 2022-09-05. "GOP on defense as Democrats harness party's ties to extremism". ABC News. Retrieved 2022-09-05. "Georgia Senate Runoff 2021". POLITICO. Retrieved 2022-09-05.

Marjorie 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).

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. 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. 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 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 articles 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 articles 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 articles 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) articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do: edit history watch purge 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 articles 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 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 articles 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 articles 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 articles United States: 50,000 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 articles 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 50,000 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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: January 24 to 30, 2021 (21st) January 31 to February 6, 2021 (4th) The following references 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. Section sizes Section size for Marjorie Taylor Greene (52 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 37,609 37,609 Early life and education 4,562 4,562 Early career 12,010 12,010 U.S. House of Representatives 37 77,246 Elections 19 44,561 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 853 853 Tenure 27,263 27,263 Committee assignments 3,037 3,037 Caucus memberships 2,348 2,348 Political positions 980 178,503 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 679 679 Gun rights 5,350 5,350 Infrastructure 3,563 3,563 LGBT rights 11,510 11,510 Race, religion, and immigration 17,797 17,797 Climate change and weather events 6,411 6,411 Evolution 1,189 1,189 Secession 3,869 3,869 Political violence and extremism 1,162 4,847 Rhetoric involving killing of opponents 3,685 3,685 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 35,420 Within Congress 9,411 15,331 Removal from House Committee assignments 5,389 5,389 House Speaker removal efforts 531 531 Outside Congress 8,538 20,071 Student loan forgiveness 599 599 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 3,213 3,213 Total 326,395 326,395

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! 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]

@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! 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]

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! 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]

@Alexysun: This song and dance has been done a million times over the last three years since I reviewed it, and the result is always the same: Marjorie Taylor Greene is quite obviously far-right; there are dozens upon hundreds of highly reliable sources to pull from calling her far-right time and time again published over her entire tenure as a congresswoman; there is no dispute among reliable sources that she is far-right; and that piece of information should be in the lead on the grounds that it's one of the two most notable things about her (the other being that she's a sitting representative) and that readers would be done a disservice by not being given upfront that piece of context whose relevance is omnipresent in almost every aspect of Greene's coverage in reliable sources. Ser! is unambiguously correct here, and Wikipedia's ability to faithfully summarize reliable sources should not be impaired by what's essentially a watering-down for the appeasement of an audience who would hate reliably sourced coverage of Greene no matter what. The consensus built up over three years has been that "far-right" is fully appropriate both as a label and as a part of the first sentence. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This type of claim should be sourced to political science or sociology experts, for example people who have PhDs, teach college courses and are published in academic journals, not people with BAs in journalism. I notice that a lot of news sources last night referred to the Democrats as "the Left," but I wouldn't describe Kamala Harris as left-wing, unless I was writing Republican propaganda. TFD (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinney Hill The statement that its not clear what is meant is in the very headline of the source. Anotherperson123 (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes . She doesn't say who controls the weather. That may not be clear, but she is saying someone can, which is plainly ridiculous. The second source suggests who she might mean, which is even more ridiculous if that is what she should mean.. Spinney Hill (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're trying to say. We could put "It's not clear who she meant", if the previous wording is in question. This is definitely stated in the source. Anotherperson123 (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]