body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Worthy of mention?

On October 26, 2023, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene proposed H.Res 829, censuring Tlaib for "leading an insurrection" and for her criticism of Israel, after she participated in a protest at the Capitol. The resolution did not pass, with all Democrats and nearly two dozen Republicans voting against it over concerns that the language was "too incendiary". Tlaib called the resolution "deeply Islamophobic" and said it attacked "peaceful Jewish anti-war advocates". Greene later amended and reintroduced the censure resolution... Drsruli (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We know that the US House of Representatives is a highly contentious forum. I would propose that no censures or resolution bills would be worthy of mention unless they have been passed. You mention no bills that have passed, so far. jimswen (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, would consider that the resolution did eventually pass - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashida_Tlaib#Censure Drsruli (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Respect For Marriage Act (2022) Votes

Political position: LGBT rights:

On July 19, 2022, Taylor-Greene voted against The Respect for Marriage Act, which codified same-sex and interracial marriages in federal law. She subsequently voted against the Senate's version of the act on December 8, 2022.

[3]https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022373

[4]https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022513 Kirkhammer11 (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As mentioned on your talk page, we don't include individual votes unless there are secondary soruces that indicate they are somehow notable for inclusion. (all the others have been reverted too, btw). --ZimZalaBim talk 23:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article?

I am surprised that this article was given "good article" status. First of all, it is not especially well-written and could definitely use more proofreading. Second of all, it has a supermarket tabloid-esque quality to it. In fairness, the supermarket tabloid-esque quality may be inevitable given who the article is about. MonMothma (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article achieved good article status two-and-a-half years ago and has certainly diminished in quality since then. Curbon7 (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need rather more concrete proposals to work with, what are your specific objections? Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]